These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.
3. A comparison of magnetic and radiographic imaging artifact after using three types of metal rods: stainless steel, titanium, and vitallium. Knott PT; Mardjetko SM; Kim RH; Cotter TM; Dunn MM; Patel ST; Spencer MJ; Wilson AS; Tager DS Spine J; 2010 Sep; 10(9):789-94. PubMed ID: 20619749 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
4. Evaluation of MR issues for the latest standard brands of orthopedic metal implants: plates and screws. Zou YF; Chu B; Wang CB; Hu ZY Eur J Radiol; 2015 Mar; 84(3):450-457. PubMed ID: 25544555 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
5. Comparison of artifact from craniomaxillofacial internal fixation devices: magnetic resonance imaging. Fiala TG; Paige KT; Davis TL; Campbell TA; Rosen BR; Yaremchuk MJ Plast Reconstr Surg; 1994 Apr; 93(4):725-31. PubMed ID: 8134430 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
6. Computed tomography artifacts associated with craniofacial fixation devices: an experimental study. Anastakis DJ; Antonyshyn OM; Cooper PW; Yaffe MJ; Bush K; Mawdsley GE Ann Plast Surg; 1996 Oct; 37(4):349-55. PubMed ID: 8905041 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
7. 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]
8. Exploring metal artifact reduction using dual-energy CT with pre-metal and post-metal implant cadaver comparison: are implant specific protocols needed? Wellenberg RHH; Donders JCE; Kloen P; Beenen LFM; Kleipool RP; Maas M; Streekstra GJ Skeletal Radiol; 2018 Jun; 47(6):839-845. PubMed ID: 28842739 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. Postfusion magnetic resonance imaging artifacts caused by a titanium, cobalt-chromium-molybdenum, and carbon intervertebral disc spacer. Ernstberger T; Heidrich G J Spinal Disord Tech; 2007 Apr; 20(2):154-9. PubMed ID: 17414986 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
10. Magnetic resonance imaging evaluation of the spine with metal implants. General safety and superior imaging with titanium. Rupp R; Ebraheim NA; Savolaine ER; Jackson WT Spine (Phila Pa 1976); 1993 Mar; 18(3):379-85. PubMed ID: 8475442 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. Biocompatibility of fixation materials in the brain. Mofid MM; Thompson RC; Pardo CA; Manson PN; Vander Kolk CA Plast Reconstr Surg; 1997 Jul; 100(1):14-20; discussion 21-2. PubMed ID: 9207654 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. Metal-induced artifacts in computed tomography and magnetic resonance imaging: comparison of a biodegradable magnesium alloy versus titanium and stainless steel controls. Filli L; Luechinger R; Frauenfelder T; Beck S; Guggenberger R; Farshad-Amacker N; Andreisek G Skeletal Radiol; 2015 Jun; 44(6):849-56. PubMed ID: 25417003 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. Titanium hip implants for improved magnetic resonance and computed tomography examinations. Ebraheim NA; Savolaine ER; Zeiss J; Jackson WT Clin Orthop Relat Res; 1992 Feb; (275):194-8. PubMed ID: 1735213 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. Postimplantation MRI with cylindric and cubic intervertebral test implants: evaluation of implant shape, material, and volume in MRI artifacting--an in vitro study. Ernstberger T; Heidrich G; Buchhorn G Spine J; 2007; 7(3):353-9. PubMed ID: 17482121 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. A comparison of magnetic resonance and computed tomographic image quality after the implantation of tantalum and titanium spinal instrumentation. Wang JC; Yu WD; Sandhu HS; Tam V; Delamarter RB Spine (Phila Pa 1976); 1998 Aug; 23(15):1684-8. PubMed ID: 9704376 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. Effects of surgical implants on high-field magnetic resonance images of the normal canine stifle. David FH; Grierson J; Lamb CR Vet Radiol Ultrasound; 2012; 53(3):280-8. PubMed ID: 22372640 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. Accuracy and predictability in use of AO three-dimensionally preformed titanium mesh plates for posttraumatic orbital reconstruction: a pilot study. Scolozzi P; Momjian A; Heuberger J; Andersen E; Broome M; Terzic A; Jaques B J Craniofac Surg; 2009 Jul; 20(4):1108-13. PubMed ID: 19553851 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. Effects of skeletal fixation on craniofacial imaging. Eppley BL; Sparks C; Herman E; Edwards M; McCarty M; Sadove AM J Craniofac Surg; 1993 Apr; 4(2):67-73. PubMed ID: 8324085 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. Magnetic resonance imaging metallic artifact of commonly encountered surgical implants and foreign material. Sutherland-Smith J; Tilley B Vet Radiol Ultrasound; 2012; 53(3):312-7. PubMed ID: 22277053 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]