Abstract
Objectives
We evaluated the in vitro detection sensitivity of orthodontic materials (serving as foreign bodies) using panoramic radiography, cone beam computed tomography (CBCT), magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), and ultrasonography.
Methods
Five different orthodontic materials served as foreign bodies: titanium–molybdenum alloy wire (TMA; ORMCO, Orange, CA, USA; 0.017 × 0.025 in in cross-sectional dimensions and 1 cm long); stainless steel bracket tooth #34 (American Orthodontics, Sheboygan, WI, USA); a monocrystalline, sapphire ceramic bracket tooth #34 (Skyortho Dental Supplies Medical, China); a polycrystalline alumina clear bracket, Damon clear bracket tooth #34 (ORMCO); and a 1 × 1 × 0.1 cm polyurethane-based thermoplastic material, Invisalign clear aligner (Align Technology, San Jose, CA, USA). Panoramic radiography, CBCT, MRI, and ultrasonography were used, and four observers scored all findings independently.
Results
The TMA and stainless steel bracket were visualised in all fields by panoramic radiography and CBCT. The sapphire and Damon brackets were very clear on CBCT. The Invisalign in air was evident only on CBCT. MRI was unable to identify any material in muscle. Ultrasonography detected the TMA, sapphire bracket, and the Invisalign in muscle but only the TMA on bone.
Conclusions
Panoramic radiography does not reveal nonmetallic orthodontic equipment in air and reveals them only poorly in muscle. CBCT was the optimal imaging modality for all materials in all fields except for the Invisalign in muscle and bone. CBCT was the only method that revealed the Invisalign in air. MRI and ultrasonography should be used to detect orthodontic materials in muscle.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Qi HJ, Boyce MC. Stress-strain behavior of thermoplastic polyurethanes. Mech Mater. 2005;37:817–39.
Bittner RC, Felix R. Magnetic resonance (MR) imaging of the chest: state-of-the-art. Eur Respir J. 1998;11:1392–404.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Schlager D, Sanders AB, Wiggins D, Boren W. Ultrasound for the detection of foreign bodies. Ann Emerg Med. 1991;20:189–91.
Acknowledgements
We thank Mutan Hamdi Aras for his scientific advice. The English in this document has been checked by at least two professional editors, both native speakers of English. For a certificate, please see: http://www.textcheck.com/certificate/5zJJh5.
Funding
There is no funding source.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Conflict of interest
Ozlem Isman declares that he has no conflict of interest. Nurettin Eren Isman declares that he has no conflict of interest.
Ethical approval
This article does not contain any studies with human participants or animals. The Gaziantep University Ethical Committee told us in writing that our work did not require ethical approval.
Informed consent
For this type of study, formal consent is not required.
Additional information
Publisher's Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Isman, O., Isman, E. Identification of various orthodontic materials as foreign bodies via panoramic radiography, cone beam computed tomography, magnetic resonance imaging, and ultrasonography: an in vitro study. Oral Radiol 37, 524–530 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11282-021-00537-3
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11282-021-00537-3