To evaluate the influence of common pediatric orthodontic appliances on velopharyngeal (VP) MRI and to compare MR image sequences to determine if sequence parameters impact the visibility of key VP structures commonly assessed in clinical VP MRI.
Design
Participants undergoing orthodontic treatment completed a VP MRI study. Level of distortion caused by orthodontic devices on 8 anatomical sites of interest and using variable MRI sequences was evaluated.
Level of distortion caused by metal artifacts and MR sequence used.
Results
The results of this study demonstrate that appliances such as hyrax palatal expanders and braces with stainless steel brackets are acceptable for a VP MRI, while class II corrector springs are not recommended. The HASTE MRI sequence with 2D imaging techniques should be utilized if the child has orthodontic devices, while FSE and 3D imaging techniques are not recommended. The presence of wire spring coils and molar bands are likely to not to interfere with the MRI evaluation.
Conclusions
Findings from this study suggest that the presence of orthodontic appliances does not hinder visualization of all velopharyngeal structures during an MRI. Therefore, careful consideration must be made prior to disqualifying or recommending patients for VP MRI.
PerryJLSnodgrassTDGilbertIR, et al.Establishing a clinical protocol for velopharyngeal MRI and interpreting imaging findings. Cleft Palate Craniofac J. 2022:10556656221141188. doi: https://doi.org/10.1177/10556656221141188.
2.
KollaraLBaylisALKirschnerRE, et al.Velopharyngeal structural and muscle variations in children with 22q11.2 deletion syndrome: an unsedated MRI study. Cleft Palate Craniofac J. 2019;56(9):1139‐1148. doi: https://doi.org/10.1177/1055665619851660.
3.
KotlarekKJSitzmanTJWilliamsJLPerryJL. Nonsedated magnetic resonance imaging for visualization of the velopharynx in the pediatric population. Cleft Palate Craniofac J. 2021:10556656211057361. doi: https://doi.org/10.1177/10556656211057361.
4.
VallinoLDZukerRNapoliJA. A study of speech, language, hearing, and dentition in children with cleft lip only. Cleft Palate Craniofac J. 2008;45(5):485‐494. doi: https://doi.org/10.1597/06-207.1.
5.
AkcamMOEvirgenSUsluOMemikogluUT. Dental anomalies in individuals with cleft lip and/or palate. Eur J Orthod. 2010;32(2):207‐213. doi: https://doi.org/10.1093/ejo/cjp156.
6.
BeauABossardDGebeile-ChautyS. Magnetic resonance imaging artefacts and fixed orthodontic attachments. Orthod Fr. 2017;88(2):131‐138. doi: https://doi.org/10.1051/orthodfr/2017004.
7.
FialaTGPaigeKTDavisTLCampbellTARosenBRYaremchukMJ. Comparison of artifact from craniomaxillofacial internal fixation devices: magnetic res imag. Plast Reconstr Surg. 1994;93(4):725‐731. doi: https://doi.org/10.1097/00006534-199404000-00011.
8.
ShafieiFHondaETakahashiHSasakiT. Artifacts from dental casting alloys in magnetic resonance imaging. J Dent Res. 2003;82(8):602‐606. doi: https://doi.org/10.1177/154405910308200806.
9.
AsanoSKanedaTFukudaT, et al.Influence of metal artifact by orthodontic appliances on brain MRI. Int J Oral Med Sci. 2016;14(4):74‐81.
10.
EggersGRiekerMKressBFiebachJDickhausHHassfeldS. Artefacts in magnetic resonance imaging caused by dental material. Magn Reson Mater Phys Biol Med. 2005;18(2):103‐111.
11.
KimYC. Fast upper airway magnetic resonance imaging for assessment of speech production and sleep apnea. Precis Fut Med. 2018;2(4):131‐148.
12.
DonnellyLF. Obstructive sleep apnea in pediatric patients: evaluation with cine MR sleep studies. Radiol. 2005;236(3):768‐778. doi: https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.2363040306.
13.
MachosCC. Orthodontic treatment for the cleft palate patient. Semin Orthod. 1996;2(3):197‐204.
14.
HongMBaekS. Differences in the alignment pattern of the maxillary dental arch following fixed orthodontic treatment in patients with bilateral cleft lip and palate: anteroposterior-collapsed arch versus transverse-collapsed arch. J Craniofac Surg. 2018;29(2):440‐444. doi: https://doi.org/10.1097/SCS.0000000000004140.
de SerresLMDeleyiannisFWEblenLEGrussJSRichardsonMASieKC. Results with sphincter pharyngoplasty and pharyngeal flap. Int J Pediatr Otorhinolaryngol. 1999;48(1):17‐25. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/s0165-5876(99)00006-3.
18.
LoskenAWilliamsJKBursteinFDMalickDRiskiJE. An outcome evaluation of sphincter pharyngoplasty for the management of velopharyngeal insufficiency. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2003;112(7):1755‐1761. doi: https://doi.org/10.1097/01.PRS.0000090720.33554.8B.
19.
InmanDSThomasPHodgkinsonPDReidCA. Oro-nasal fistula development and velopharyngeal insufficiency following primary cleft palate surgery–an audit of 148 children born between 1985 and 1997. Br J Plast Surg. 2005;58(8):1051‐1054. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bjps.2005.05.019.
20.
PerryJ. Variations in velopharyngeal structures between upright and supine positions using upright magnetic resonance imaging. Cleft Palate Craniofac J. 2011;48(2):123‐133. doi: https://doi.org/10.1597/09-256.
21.
KollaraLPerryJL. Effects of gravity on the velopharyngeal structures in children using upright magnetic resonance imaging. Cleft Palate Craniofac J. 2014;51(6):669‐676. doi: https://doi.org/10.1597/13-107.
22.
TianWYinHLiYZhaoSZhengQShiB. Magnetic resonance imaging assessment of velopharyngeal structures in Chinese children after primary palatal repair. J Craniofac Surg. 2010;21(2):568‐577. doi: https://doi.org/10.1097/SCS.0b013e3181d08bd1.
23.
PerryJLWilliamsJLSnodgrassTDSitzmanTJ. VPI Management in SATB2 syndrome: use of MRI to evaluate anatomy and physiology in non-cleft VPI. Cleft Palate Craniofac J. 2022:10556656221106888. doi: https://doi.org/10.1177/10556656221106888.
24.
BaeYKuehnDPSuttonBPConwayCAPerryJ. Three-dimensional magnetic resonance imaging of velopharyngeal structures. J Speech Lang Hear Res. 2011;54(6):1538‐1545. doi: https://doi.org/10.1044/1092-4388(2011/10-0021).
25.
SchenckGCPerryJLFangX. Normative velopharyngeal data in infants: implications for treatment of cleft palate. J Craniofac Surg. 2016;27(6):1430‐1439. doi: https://doi.org/10.1097/SCS.0000000000002722.
26.
PatelMRKlufasRAAlbericoRAEdelmanRR. Half-Fourier acquisition single-shot turbo spin-echo (HASTE) MR: comparison with fast spin-echo MR in diseases of the brain. Am J Neurorad. 1997;18(9):1635‐1640.
27.
ElisonJMLeggittVLThomsonMOyoyoUWycliffeND. Influence of common orthodontic appliances on the diagnostic quality of cranial magnetic resonance images. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2008;134(4):563‐572. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajodo.2006.10.038.
28.
ShalishMDyksteinNFriedlander-BarenboimSBen-DavidEGomoriJMChaushuS. Influence of common fixed retainers on the diagnostic quality of cranial magnetic resonance images. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2015;147(5):604‐609. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajodo.2014.11.022.
PerryJLKuehnDPSuttonBP. Morphology of the levator veli palatini muscle using magnetic resonance imaging. Cleft Palate Craniofac J. 2013;50(1):64‐75. doi: https://doi.org/10.1597/11-125.
31.
PerryJLKollaraLSuttonBPKuehnDPFangX. Growth effects on velopharyngeal anatomy from childhood to adulthood. J Speech Lang Hear Res. 2019;62(3):682‐692. doi: https://doi.org/10.1044/2018_JSLHR-S-18-0016.
32.
PerryJLSuttonBPKuehnDPGamageJK. Using MRI for assessing velopharyngeal structures and function. Cleft Palate Craniofac J. 2014;51(4):476‐486. doi: https://doi.org/10.1597/12-083.
33.
TianWRedettRJ. New velopharyngeal measurements at rest and during speech: implications and applications. J Craniofac Surg. 2009;20(2):532‐539. doi: https://doi.org/10.1097/SCS.0b013e31819b9fbe.
34.
JungmannPMAgtenCAPfirrmannCWSutterR. Advances in MRI around metal. J Magn Reson Imaging. 2017;46(4):972‐991. doi: https://doi.org/10.1002/jmri.25708.
35.
TomsAPSmith-BatemanCMalcolmPNCahirJGravesM. Optimization of metal artefact reduction (MAR) sequences for MRI of total hip prostheses. Clin Radiol. 2010;65(6):447‐452. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.crad.2009.12.014.
36.
PerryJLHaensslerAEKotlarekKJ, et al.Does the type of MRI sequence influence perceived quality and measurement consistency in investigations of the anatomy of the velopharynx?Cleft Palate Craniofac J. 2022;59(6):741‐750. doi: https://doi.org/10.1177/10556656211025191.
37.
AriyanayagamTMalcolmPNTomsAP. Advances in metal artifact reduction techniques for periprosthetic soft tissue imaging. Semin Musculoskelet Radiol. 2015;19(4):328‐334. doi: https://doi.org/10.1055/s-0035-1563734.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
