248 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 25420942)
1. Predictability of magnetic susceptibility artifacts from metallic orthodontic appliances in magnetic resonance imaging.
Blankenstein F; Truong BT; Thomas A; Thieme N; Zachriat C
J Orofac Orthop; 2015 Jan; 76(1):14-29. PubMed ID: 25420942
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
2. Impact of orthodontic appliances on the quality of craniofacial anatomical magnetic resonance imaging and real-time speech imaging.
Wylezinska M; Pinkstone M; Hay N; Scott AD; Birch MJ; Miquel ME
Eur J Orthod; 2015 Dec; 37(6):610-7. PubMed ID: 25667040
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
3. Magnetic permeability as a predictor of the artefact size caused by orthodontic appliances at 1.5 T magnetic resonance imaging.
Blankenstein FH; Asbach P; Beuer F; Glienke J; Mayer S; Zachriat C
Clin Oral Investig; 2017 Jan; 21(1):281-289. PubMed ID: 26984824
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
4. Artifact reduction from metallic dental materials in T1-weighted spin-echo imaging at 3.0 tesla.
Zho SY; Kim MO; Lee KW; Kim DH
J Magn Reson Imaging; 2013 Feb; 37(2):471-8. PubMed ID: 22941956
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
5. Influence of orthodontic appliance-derived artifacts on 3-T MRI movies.
Ozawa E; Honda EI; Parakonthun KN; Ohmori H; Shimazaki K; Kurabayashi T; Ono T
Prog Orthod; 2018 Feb; 19(1):7. PubMed ID: 29457192
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
6. Evaluation of MRI artifacts at 3 Tesla for 38 commonly used cosmetics.
Escher K; Shellock FG
Magn Reson Imaging; 2013 Jun; 31(5):778-82. PubMed ID: 23290125
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
7. MRI with intraoral orthodontic appliance-a comparative in vitro and in vivo study of image artefacts at 1.5 T.
Zachriat C; Asbach P; Blankenstein KI; Peroz I; Blankenstein FH
Dentomaxillofac Radiol; 2015; 44(6):20140416. PubMed ID: 25734243
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. [Signal loss in magnetic resonance imaging caused by intraoral anchored dental magnetic materials].
Blankenstein FH; Truong B; Thomas A; Schröder RJ; Naumann M
Rofo; 2006 Aug; 178(8):787-93. PubMed ID: 16862505
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. Comparison of the artifacts caused by metallic implants in breast MRI using dual-echo dixon versus conventional fat-suppression techniques.
Le Y; Kipfer HD; Majidi SS; Holz S; Lin C
AJR Am J Roentgenol; 2014 Sep; 203(3):W307-14. PubMed ID: 25148189
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
10. SEMAC-VAT and MSVAT-SPACE sequence strategies for metal artifact reduction in 1.5T magnetic resonance imaging.
Ai T; Padua A; Goerner F; Nittka M; Gugala Z; Jadhav S; Trelles M; Johnson RF; Lindsey RW; Li X; Runge VM
Invest Radiol; 2012 May; 47(5):267-76. PubMed ID: 22266987
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. Quantifying image distortion of orthopedic materials in magnetic resonance imaging.
Koff MF; Shah P; Koch KM; Potter HG
J Magn Reson Imaging; 2013 Sep; 38(3):610-8. PubMed ID: 23292702
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. Magnetic resonance imaging in cadaver dogs with metallic vertebral implants at 3 Tesla: evaluation of the WARP-turbo spin echo sequence.
Griffin JF; Archambault NS; Mankin JM; Wall CR; Thompson JA; Padua A; Purdy D; Kerwin SC
Spine (Phila Pa 1976); 2013 Nov; 38(24):E1548-53. PubMed ID: 23921320
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. Three-dimensional quantification of susceptibility artifacts from various metals in magnetic resonance images.
Imai H; Tanaka Y; Nomura N; Tsutsumi Y; Doi H; Kanno Z; Ohno K; Ono T; Hanawa T
Acta Biomater; 2013 Sep; 9(9):8433-9. PubMed ID: 23707948
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. Metallic artifacts in magnetic resonance imaging of patients with spinal fusion. A comparison of implant materials and imaging sequences.
Rudisch A; Kremser C; Peer S; Kathrein A; Judmaier W; Daniaux H
Spine (Phila Pa 1976); 1998 Mar; 23(6):692-9. PubMed ID: 9549791
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. Susceptibility artifacts from metallic markers and cardiac catheterization devices on a high-performance 0.55 T MRI system.
Basar B; Sonmez M; Yildirim DK; Paul R; Herzka DA; Kocaturk O; Lederman RJ; Campbell-Washburn AE
Magn Reson Imaging; 2021 Apr; 77():14-20. PubMed ID: 33309924
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. [Options for the reduction of magnetic susceptibility artifacts caused by implanted microchips in 0.5 Tesla magnetic resonance imaging].
Piesnack S; Oechtering G; Ludewig E
Tierarztl Prax Ausg K Kleintiere Heimtiere; 2015; 43(2):83-92. PubMed ID: 25727725
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. Material-Dependent Implant Artifact Reduction Using SEMAC-VAT and MAVRIC: A Prospective MRI Phantom Study.
Filli L; Jud L; Luechinger R; Nanz D; Andreisek G; Runge VM; Kozerke S; Farshad-Amacker NA
Invest Radiol; 2017 Jun; 52(6):381-387. PubMed ID: 28092272
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. Magnetic susceptibility and electrical conductivity of metallic dental materials and their impact on MR imaging artifacts.
Starcuková J; Starcuk Z; Hubálková H; Linetskiy I
Dent Mater; 2008 Jun; 24(6):715-23. PubMed ID: 17884157
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. Metallic spinal artifacts in magnetic resonance imaging.
Vaccaro AR; Chesnut RM; Scuderi G; Healy JF; Massie JB; Garfin SR
Spine (Phila Pa 1976); 1994 Jun; 19(11):1237-42. PubMed ID: 8073315
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20. Evaluation of the WARP-turbo spin echo sequence for 3 Tesla magnetic resonance imaging of stifle joints in dogs with stainless steel tibial plateau leveling osteotomy implants.
Simpler RE; Kerwin SC; Eichelberger BM; Wall CR; Thompson JA; Padua A; Purdy D; Griffin JF
Vet Radiol Ultrasound; 2014; 55(4):414-9. PubMed ID: 24438513
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
