Home Dental Radiology Identification of various orthodontic materials as foreign bodies via panoramic radiography, cone beam computed tomography, magnetic resonance imaging, and ultrasonography: an in vitro study

Identification of various orthodontic materials as foreign bodies via panoramic radiography, cone beam computed tomography, magnetic resonance imaging, and ultrasonography: an in vitro study

by adminjay


  • 1.

    Aras MH, Miloglu O, Barutcugil C, Kantarci M, Ozcan E, Harorli A. Comparison of the sensitivity for detecting foreign bodies among conventional plain radiography, computed tomography and ultrasonography. Dentomaxillofac Radiol. 2010;39:72–8.

    Article 

    Google Scholar
     

  • 2.

    Anderson MA, Newmeyer WL 3rd, Kilgore ES Jr. Diagnosis and treatment of retained foreign bodies in the hand. Am J Surg. 1982;144:63–7.

    Article 

    Google Scholar
     

  • 3.

    Javadrashid R, Fouladi DF, Golamian M, Hajalioghli P, Daghighi MH, Shahmorady Z, et al. Visibility of different foreign bodies in the maxillofacial region using plain radiography, CT, MRI and ultrasonography: an in vitro study. Dentomaxillofac Radiol. 2015;44:20140229.

    Article 

    Google Scholar
     

  • 4.

    Atala MH, Atala N, Yegin E, Bayrak S. Comparison of radiopacity of current restorative CAD/CAM blocks with digital radiography. J Esthet Restor Dent. 2019;31:88–92.

    Article 

    Google Scholar
     

  • 5.

    Beuf O, Lissac M, Cremillieux Y, Briguet A. Correlation between magnetic resonance imaging disturbances and the magnetic susceptibility of dental materials. Dent Mater. 1994;10:265–8.

    Article 

    Google Scholar
     

  • 6.

    Klinke T, Daboul A, Maron J, Gredes T, Puls R, Jaghsi A, et al. Artifacts in magnetic resonance imaging and computed tomography caused by dental materials. PLoS ONE. 2012;7:e31766.

    Article 

    Google Scholar
     

  • 7.

    Stockmann P, Vairaktaris E, Fenner M, Tudor C, Neukam FW, Nkenke E. Conventional radiographs: are they still the standard in localization of projectiles? Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod. 2007;104:e71–5.

    Article 

    Google Scholar
     

  • 8.

    Eggers G, Welzel T, Mukhamadiev D, Wortche R, Hassfeld S, Muhling J. X-ray-based volumetric imaging of foreign bodies: a comparison of computed tomography and digital volume tomography. J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2007;65:1880–5.

    Article 

    Google Scholar
     

  • 9.

    Orlinsky M, Knittel P, Feit T, Chan L, Mandavia D. The comparative accuracy of radiolucent foreign body detection using ultrasonography. Am J Emerg Med. 2000;18:401–3.

    Article 

    Google Scholar
     

  • 10.

    Oikarinen KS, Nieminen TM, Makarainen H, Pyhtinen J. Visibility of foreign bodies in soft tissue in plain radiographs, computed tomography, magnetic resonance imaging, and ultrasound. An in vitro study. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 1993;22:119–24.

    Article 

    Google Scholar
     

  • 11.

    Schulze R, Heil U, Gross D, Bruellmann DD, Dranischnikow E, Schwanecke U, et al. Artefacts in CBCT: a review. Dentomaxillofac Radiol. 2011;40:265–73.

    Article 

    Google Scholar
     

  • 12.

    Isman O, Aktan AM, Ertas ET. Evaluating the effects of orthodontic materials, field of view, and artifact reduction mode on accuracy of CBCT-based caries detection. Clin Oral Investig. 2020;24:2487–96.

    Article 

    Google Scholar
     

  • 13.

    Smeets R, Schollchen M, Gauer T, Aarabi G, Assaf AT, Rendenbach C, et al. Artefacts in multimodal imaging of titanium, zirconium and binary titanium-zirconium alloy dental implants: an in vitro study. Dentomaxillofac Radiol. 2017. https://doi.org/10.1259/dmfr.20160267.

    Article 
    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 

    Google Scholar
     

  • 14.

    Papadopoulou AK, Cantele A, Polychronis G, Zinelis S, Eliades T. Changes in roughness and mechanical properties of invisalign((R)) appliances after one- and two-weeks use. Materials (Basel). 2019;12:2406.

    Article 

    Google Scholar
     

  • 15.

    Qi HJ, Boyce MC. Stress-strain behavior of thermoplastic polyurethanes. Mech Mater. 2005;37:817–39.

    Article 

    Google Scholar
     

  • 16.

    Bittner RC, Felix R. Magnetic resonance (MR) imaging of the chest: state-of-the-art. Eur Respir J. 1998;11:1392–404.

    Article 

    Google Scholar
     

  • 17.

    Destine D, Mizutani H, Igarashi Y. Metallic artifacts in MRI caused by dental alloys and magnetic keeper. Nihon Hotetsu Shika Gakkai Zasshi. 2008;52:205–10.

    Article 

    Google Scholar
     

  • 18.

    Wylezinska M, Pinkstone M, Hay N, Scott AD, Birch MJ, Miquel ME. Impact of orthodontic appliances on the quality of craniofacial anatomical magnetic resonance imaging and real-time speech imaging. Eur J Orthod. 2015;37:610–7.

    Article 

    Google Scholar
     

  • 19.

    Cassetta M, Pranno N, Stasolla A, Orsogna N, Fierro D, Cavallini C, et al. The effects of a common stainless steel orthodontic bracket on the diagnostic quality of cranial and cervical 3T- MR images: a prospective, case-control study. Dentomaxillofac Radiol. 2017;46:20170051.

    Article 

    Google Scholar
     

  • 20.

    Manthey DE, Storrow AB, Milbourn JM, Wagner BJ. Ultrasound versus radiography in the detection of soft-tissue foreign bodies. Ann Emerg Med. 1996;28:7–9.

    Article 

    Google Scholar
     

  • 21.

    Schlager D, Sanders AB, Wiggins D, Boren W. Ultrasound for the detection of foreign bodies. Ann Emerg Med. 1991;20:189–91.

    Article 

    Google Scholar
     



  • Source link

    Related Articles