Advertisement

European Radiology

, Volume 27, Issue 12, pp 5104–5112 | Cite as

PETRA, MSVAT-SPACE and SEMAC sequences for metal artefact reduction in dental MR imaging

  • Tim Hilgenfeld
  • Marcel Prager
  • Alexander Heil
  • Franz Sebastian Schwindling
  • Mathias Nittka
  • David Grodzki
  • Peter Rammelsberg
  • Martin Bendszus
  • Sabine Heiland
Head and Neck

Abstract

Objectives

Dental MRI is often impaired by artefacts due to metallic dental materials. Several sequences were developed to reduce susceptibility artefacts. Here, we evaluated a set of sequences for artefact reduction for dental MRI for the first time.

Methods

Artefact volume, signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) and image quality were assessed on a 3-T MRI for pointwise encoding time reduction with radial acquisition (PETRA), multiple-slab acquisition with view angle tilting gradient, based on a sampling perfection with application-optimised contrasts using different flip angle evolution (SPACE) sequence (MSVAT-SPACE), slice-encoding for metal-artefact correction (SEMAC) and compared to a standard SPACE and a standard turbo-spin-echo (TSE) sequence. Field-of-view and acquisition times were chosen to enable in vivo application. Two implant-supported prostheses were tested (porcelain fused to metal non-precious alloy and monolithic zirconia).

Results

Smallest artefact was measured for TSE sequences with no difference between the standard TSE and the SEMAC. MSVAT-SPACE reduced artefacts about 56% compared to the standard SPACE. Effect of the PETRA was dependent on sample used. Image quality and SNR were comparable for all sequences except PETRA, which yielded poor results.

Conclusion

There is no benefit in terms of artefact reduction for SEMAC compared to standard TSE. Usage of MSVAT-SPACE is advantageous since artefacts are reduced and higher resolution is achieved.

Key Points

SEMAC is not superior to TSE in terms of artefact reduction.

MSVAT-SPACE reduces susceptibility artefacts while maintaining comparable image quality.

PETRA reduces susceptibility artefacts depending on material but offers poor image quality

Keywords

Magnetic resonance imaging Artefacts Teeth Dental implants Metals 

Abbreviations

CBCT

Cone beam computed tomography

MDCT

Multi-detector computed tomography

MSVAT-SPACE

Multiple-slab acquisition with VAT gradient, based on a SPACE sequence

PETRA

Pointwise encoding time reduction with radial acquisition

RF

Radio frequency

ROI

Region of interest

SEMAC

Slice-encoding for metal artefact correction

SNR

Signal-to-noise ratio

SPACE

Sampling perfection with application-optimised contrasts using different flip angle evolution

TSE

Turbo-spin-echo sequence

UTE

Ultrashort time of echo sequence

VAT

View angle tilting

WIP

Work in progress

Notes

Acknowledgements

TH receives funding from a postdoctoral fellowship of the Medical Faculty of the University of Heidelberg. The authors would like to thank Stefanie Sauer, PhD, a pharmacist at the Department of Pharmacy, Heidelberg University Hospital, for her contribution to the MRI phantom. Furthermore, we would like to thank NORAS MRI products GmbH, especially Daniel Gareis, MSc, for providing a prototype of the 16-channel multipurpose coil.

Compliance with ethical standards

Guarantor

The scientific guarantor of this publication is Dr. rer. nat. Sabine Heiland.

Conflict of interest

The authors of this manuscript declare relationships with the following companies: Siemens Healthcare GmbH and NORAS MRI products GmbH. The co-authors M.Nittka, PhD, and D.Grodzki, PhD, are employees of Siemens Healthcare GmbH and were involved in the technical development of the metal-artefact-reducing pulse sequences.

Funding

The study was supported in part by the Dietmar-Hopp-Stiftung (project no 23011228).

Statistics and biometry

No complex statistical methods were necessary for this paper.

Informed consent

Informed consent was not required since no living animals were studied.

Ethical approval

Institutional review board approval was not required since no living animals were studied.

Methodology

• Prospective

• experimental

• performed at one institution

References

  1. 1.
    Vandenberghe B, Jacobs R, Bosmans H (2010) Modern dental imaging: a review of the current technology and clinical applications in dental practice. Eur Radiol 20:2637–2655CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Patel S, Dawood A, Ford TP, Whaites E (2007) The potential applications of cone beam computed tomography in the management of endodontic problems. Int Endod J 40:818–830CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Gahleitner A, Watzek G, Imhof H (2003) Dental CT: imaging technique, anatomy, and pathologic conditions of the jaws. Eur Radiol 13:366–376PubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Abrahams JJ (2001) Dental CT imaging: a look at the jaw 1. Radiology 219:334–345CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Monsour P, Dudhia R (2008) Implant radiography and radiology. Aust Dent J 53(Suppl 1):25Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Claus E, Calvocoressi L, Bondy M, Schildkraut J, Wiemels J, Wrensch M (2012) Dental x-rays and risk of meningioma. Cancer 118:4530–4537CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Liang X, Lambrichts I, Sun Y et al (2010) A comparative evaluation of cone beam computed tomography (CBCT) and multi-slice CT (MSCT). Part II: On 3D model accuracy. Eur J Radiol 75:270–274CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Eggers G, Rieker M, Kress B, Fiebach J, Dickhaus H, Hassfeld S (2005) Artefacts in magnetic resonance imaging caused by dental material. MAGMA 18:103–111CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Ai T, Padua A, Goerner F et al (2012) SEMAC-VAT and MSVAT-SPACE sequence strategies for metal artifact reduction in 1.5T magnetic resonance imaging. Investig Radiol 47:267–276CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Lee YH, Lim D, Kim E, Kim S, Song HT, Suh JS (2013) Usefulness of slice encoding for metal artifact correction (SEMAC) for reducing metallic artifacts in 3-T MRI. Magn Reson Imaging 31:703–706CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Sutter R, Ulbrich EJ, Jellus V, Nittka M, Pfirrmann CW (2012) Reduction of metal artifacts in patients with total hip arthroplasty with slice-encoding metal artifact correction and view-angle tilting MR imaging. Radiology 265:204–214CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Cho ZH, Kim DJ, Kim YK (1988) Total inhomogeneity correction including chemical shifts and susceptibility by view angle tilting. Med Phys 15:7–11CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Zho S-Y, Kim M-O, Lee K-W, Kim D-H (2013) Artifact reduction from metallic dental materials in T1-weighted spin-echo imaging at 3.0 tesla. J Magn Reson Imaging 37:471–478CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Penarrocha Diago M, Boronat Lopez A, Lamas Pelayo J (2006) Update in dental implant periapical surgery. Med Oral Patol Oral Cir Bucal 11:E429–E432PubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Li G, Nittka M, Paul D, Lauer L (2011) MSVAT-SPACE for fast metal implants imaging. Proc Intl Soc Mag Reson Med 19:3171Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Grodzki D, Jakob P, Heismann B (2012) Ultrashort echo time imaging using pointwise encoding time reduction with radial acquisition (PETRA). Magn Reson Med 67:510–518CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Klinke T, Daboul A, Maron J et al (2012) Artifacts in magnetic resonance imaging and computed tomography caused by dental materials. PLoS One 7:e31766CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Imai H, Tanaka Y, Nomura N et al (2013) Three-dimensional quantification of susceptibility artifacts from various metals in magnetic resonance images. Acta Biomater 9:8433–8439CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Dietrich O, Raya JGG, Reeder SB, Reiser MF, Schoenberg SO (2007) Measurement of signal-to-noise ratios in MR images: influence of multichannel coils, parallel imaging, and reconstruction filters. J Magn Reson Imaging 26:375–385CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Friedman L, Glover GH (2006) Report on a multicenter fMRI quality assurance protocol. J Magn Reson Imaging 23:827–839CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Landis J, Koch G (1977) An application of hierarchical kappa-type statistics in the assessment of majority agreement among multiple observers. Biometrics 33:363–374CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Eley KA, Watt-Smith SR, Golding SJ (2013) "Black Bone" MRI: a potential non-ionizing method for three-dimensional cephalometric analysis–a preliminary feasibility study. Dentomaxillofac Radiol 42:20130236CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Tymofiyeva O, Rottner K, Jakob PM, Richter EJJ, Proff P (2010) Three-dimensional localization of impacted teeth using magnetic resonance imaging. Clin Oral Investig 14:169–176CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Kress B, Buhl Y, Hähnel S, Eggers G, Sartor K, Schmitter M (2007) Age- and tooth-related pulp cavity signal intensity changes in healthy teeth: a comparative magnetic resonance imaging analysis. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod 103:134–137CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Tymofiyeva O, Rottner K, Gareis D et al (2008) In vivo MRI-based dental impression using an intraoral RF receiver coil. Concepts Magn Reson 33B:244–251CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Schara R, Sersa I, Skaleric U (2009) T1 relaxation time and magnetic resonance imaging of inflamed gingival tissue. Dentomaxillofac Radiol 38:216–223CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Tartaglino LM, Flanders AE, Vinitski S, Friedman DP (1994) Metallic artifacts on MR images of the postoperative spine: reduction with fast spin-echo techniques. Radiology 190:565–569CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Hargreaves B, Worters P, Pauly K, Pauly J, Koch K, Gold G (2011) Metal-induced artifacts in MRI. AJR Am J Roentgenol 197:547–555CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Viano A, Gronemeyer S, Haliloglu M, Hoffer F (2000) Improved MR imaging for patients with metallic implants. Magn Reson Imaging 18:287–295CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Cox RJ, Kau CH, Rasche V (2012) Three-dimensional ultrashort echo magnetic resonance imaging of orthodontic appliances in the natural dentition. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 142:552–561CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Carl M, Koch K, Du J (2012) MR imaging near metal with undersampled 3D radial UTE-MAVRIC sequences. Magn Reson Med 69:27–36CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© European Society of Radiology 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  • Tim Hilgenfeld
    • 1
  • Marcel Prager
    • 1
    • 2
  • Alexander Heil
    • 1
  • Franz Sebastian Schwindling
    • 3
  • Mathias Nittka
    • 4
  • David Grodzki
    • 4
  • Peter Rammelsberg
    • 3
  • Martin Bendszus
    • 1
  • Sabine Heiland
    • 1
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of NeuroradiologyHeidelberg University HospitalHeidelbergGermany
  2. 2.Section of Experimental RadiologyHeidelberg University HospitalHeidelbergGermany
  3. 3.Department of ProsthodonticsHeidelberg University HospitalHeidelbergGermany
  4. 4.Siemens Healthcare GmbHErlangenGermany

Personalised recommendations