Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

MRI safety for leave-on powdered hair thickeners under 1.5-T and 3.0-T MRI: measurement of deflection force, MRI artifact, and evaluation of preexamination screening

  • Scientific Paper
  • Published:
Physical and Engineering Sciences in Medicine Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

This study aimed to clarify the magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) compatibility of leave-on powdered hair thickeners by evaluating the displacement force and image artifacts of commercially available leave-on powdered hair thickeners on MRI devices and their response to metal and ferromagnetic detectors. Thirteen types of leave-on powdered hair thickeners were studied: nine hair thickener and four foundation types. MRI systems of 1.5 T and 3.0 T were used. Deflection angles and MR image artifacts according to ASTM F2052 and F2119 were evaluated. Handheld metal and ferromagnetic detectors were used to investigate whether hair thickeners could be detected in screening before MRI examinations. The hair thickener type had a deflection angle of 0°, whereas the foundation type had a deflection angle of 90°, indicating a strong physical effect. Significant image artifacts appeared only on the foundation type. The foundation type reacted at distances of less than 10 cm only with a ferromagnetic detector. Foundation-type leave-on powdered hair thickeners containing magnetic substances exhibited strong physical effects and produced significant image artifacts, and those can only be detected by screening with a ferromagnetic detector.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8
Fig. 9

Similar content being viewed by others

Data availability

The datasets generated during and/or analyzed during the current study are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.

References

  1. Hargreaves BA, Worters PW, Pauly KB, Pauly JM, Koch KM, Gold GE (2011) Metal-induced artifacts in MRI. Am J Roentgenol 197(3):547–555

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Akdogan G, Istanbullu OB (2022) Analysing the effects of metallic biomaterial design and imaging sequences on MRI interpretation challenges due to image artefacts. Phys Eng Sci Med 45(4):1163–1174

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Poh PG, Liew C, Yeo C, Chong LR, Tan A, Poh A (2017) Cardiovascular implantable electronic devices: a review of the dangers and difficulties in MR scanning and attempts to improve safety. Insights Imaging 8(4):405–418

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  4. Sinclair AG, Scoffings DJ (2010) Imaging of the post-operative cranium. Radiographics 30(2):461–482

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Carter LN, Addison O, Naji N, Seres P, Wilman AH, Shepherd DET, Grover L, Cox S (2020) Reducing MRI susceptibility artefacts in implants using additively manufactured porous Ti-6Al-4V structures. Acta Biomater 107:338–348

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Galley J, Sutter R, Stern C, Filli L, Rahm S, Pfirrmann CWA (2020) Diagnosis of periprosthetic hip joint infection using MRI with metal artifact reduction at 1.5 T. Radiology 296(1):98–108

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Sundermann B, Billebaut B, Bauer J, Iacoban CG, Alykova O, Schülke C, Gerdes M, Kugel H, Neduvakkattu S, Bösenberg H, Mathys C (2022) Practical aspects of novel MRI techniques in neuroradiology: Part 1–3D acquisitions, dixon techniques and artefact reduction (Praktische Aspekte neuerer MRT-Techniken in der Neuroradiologie: Teil 1–3D, Dixon-Techniken und Artefaktreduktion). Rofo 194(10):1100–1108

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Agten CA, Del Grande F, Fucentese SF, Blatter S, Pfirrmann CWA, Sutter R (2015) Unicompartmental knee arthroplasty MRI: impact of slice-encoding for metal artefact correction MRI on image quality, findings and therapy decision. Eur Radiol 25(7):2184–2193

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Tope WD, Shellock FG (2002) Magnetic resonance imaging and permanent cosmetics (tattoos): survey of complications and adverse events. J Magn Reson Imaging 15(2):180–184

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Smith FW, Crosher GA (1985) Mascara: an unsuspected cause of magnetic resonance imaging artifact. Magn Reson Imaging 3(3):287–289

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Sacco DC, Steiger DA, Bellon EM, Coleman PE, Haacke EM (1987) Artifacts caused by cosmetics in MR imaging of the head. Am J Roentgenol 148(5):1001–1004

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. Escher K, Shellock FG (2013) Evaluation of MRI artifacts at 3 Tesla for 38 commonly used cosmetics. Magn Reson Imaging 31(5):778–782

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Chenji S, Wilman AH, Mah D, Seres P, Genge A, Kalra S (2017) Hair product artifact in magnetic resonance imaging. Magn Reson Imaging 35:1–3

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Jabehdar Maralani P, Schieda N, Hecht EM, Litt H, Hindman N, Heyn C, Davenport MS, Zaharchuk G, Hess CP, Weinreb J (2020) MRI safety and devices: an update and expert consensus. J Magn Reson Imaging 51(3):657–674

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. ASTM F2052-15 (2015) Standard test method for measurement of magnetically induced displacement force on medical devices in the magnetic resonance environment. ASTM International

  16. ASTM F2119-07 (2013) Standard test method for evaluation of MR image artifacts from passive implants. ASTM International

  17. Huang SY, Seethamraju RT, Patel P, Hahn PF, Kirsch JE, Guimaraes AR (2015) Body MR imaging: artifacts, k-space, and solutions. Radiographics 35(5):1439–1460

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Dempsey MF, Condon B, Hadley DM (2002) MRI safety review. Semin Ultrasound CT MRI 23(5):392–401

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Wooldridge J, Arduino A, Zilberti L, Zanovello U, Chiampi M, Clementi V, Bottauscio O (2021) Gradient coil and radiofrequency induced heating of orthopaedic implants in MRI: influencing factors. Phys Med Biol 66(24):245024

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Funding

The authors declare that no funds, grants, or other support were received during the preparation of this manuscript.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Radiology, Gunma University Hospital, Maebashi, Japan

    Yusuke Sato & Tomokazu Takeuchi

  2. Department of Radiological Technology, Graduate School of Radiological Technology, Gunma Prefectural College of Health Sciences, Maebashi, Japan

    Yusuke Sato, Tomokazu Takeuchi, Masahiko Takahashi, Maiko Hashimoto & Ryuya Okawa

  3. Department of Radiological Technology, Kiryu Kosei General Hospital, Kiryu, Japan

    Atsuya Fuju

  4. Department of Central Radiology, Isesaki Municipal Hospital, Isesaki, Japan

    Masahiko Takahashi & Maiko Hashimoto

  5. Department of Diagnostic Imaging, Institute of Brain and Blood Vessels, Mihara Memorial Hospital, Isesaki, Japan

    Ryuya Okawa

  6. Department of Radiological Technology, Gunma Prefectural College of Health Sciences, Maebashi, Japan

    Norio Hayashi

Authors
  1. Yusuke Sato
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Tomokazu Takeuchi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Atsuya Fuju
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Masahiko Takahashi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Maiko Hashimoto
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Ryuya Okawa
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Norio Hayashi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

All authors contributed to the study conception and design. Material preparation and data collection were performed by TT, AF, MT, MH and RO. Data analysis was performed by YS and NH. The first draft of the manuscript was written by YS and NH. All authors commented on previous versions of the manuscript. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Yusuke Sato.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The author declared that they have no conflict of interest.

Ethical approval

Not applicable.

Consent to participate

Not applicable.

Consent for publication

Not applicable.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Sato, Y., Takeuchi, T., Fuju, A. et al. MRI safety for leave-on powdered hair thickeners under 1.5-T and 3.0-T MRI: measurement of deflection force, MRI artifact, and evaluation of preexamination screening. Phys Eng Sci Med 46, 915–924 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s13246-023-01267-y

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s13246-023-01267-y

Keywords

Search

Navigation