Artifacts in magnetic resonance imaging of the head and neck: Unwanted effects caused by implant-supported restorations fabricated with different alloys

Lauren Bohner; Dieter Dirksen; Marcel Hanisch; Newton Sesma; Johannes Kleinheinz; Norbert Meier

doi:10.1016/j.prosdent.2023.08.018

Artifacts in magnetic resonance imaging of the head and neck: Unwanted effects caused by implant-supported restorations fabricated with different alloys

J Prosthet Dent. 2023 Sep 20:S0022-3913(23)00554-1. doi: 10.1016/j.prosdent.2023.08.018. Online ahead of print.

Authors

Lauren Bohner¹, Dieter Dirksen², Marcel Hanisch³, Newton Sesma⁴, Johannes Kleinheinz⁵, Norbert Meier⁶

Affiliations

¹ Research Associate, Department of Cranio-Maxillofacial Surgery, University Hospital Muenster, Muenster, Germany. Electronic address: lauren.bohner@ukmuenster.de.
² Professor, Department of Prosthodontics and Biomaterials, University Hospital Muenster, Muenster, Germany.
³ Research Associate, Department of Cranio-Maxillofacial Surgery, University Hospital Muenster, Muenster, Germany.
⁴ Professor, Department of Prosthodontics, School of Dentistry, University of São Paulo (USP), São Paulo, Brazil.
⁵ Professor, Department of Cranio-Maxillofacial Surgery, University Hospital Muenster, Muenster, Germany.
⁶ Research Associate, Department of Radiology, University Hospital Muenster, Muenster, Germany.

PMID: 37739882
DOI: 10.1016/j.prosdent.2023.08.018

Abstract

Statement of problem: Implant-supported restorations may cause artifacts in magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) of the head and neck area. However, the effect of different alloys remains unclear.

Purpose: The purpose of this in vitro study was to assess artifacts in head and neck MRI caused by implant-supported restorations with different alloys.

Material and methods: Three dry mandibles were prepared to receive bilateral dental implants at the second premolar and second molar sites. Different alloy combinations were evaluated: titanium implants+cobalt chromium restorations; titanium-zirconium implants+cobalt chromium restorations; and zirconia implants+ceramic restorations. Specimens were imaged by using a 3-Tesla magnetic resonance scanner system (Achieva 3.0T TX; Philips GmbH) with a turbo-spin-echo sequence. Scan protocols were adjusted to optimize metal artifact reduction and shorten scan time. Artifact volumes were assessed and statistically analyzed by using the Kruskal-Wallis and Spearman tests (α=.05).

Results: A statistically significant difference was found among artifact volume caused by different materials (P=.002). The presence of titanium alloy was correlated with the artifact volume (r=-.87). Artifacts were greater for titanium and fewer for titanium-zirconium alloys, whereas zirconia implants found only minimal artifacts.

Conclusions: The dimension of artifacts produced by implant-supported restorations varied according to the material.