Scholarlink

Objective <p>Invasive multimodal fMRI in rodents is often compromised by susceptibility artifacts from adhesives used to secure cranial implants. We hypothesized that adhesive type, shape, and field strength significantly affect susceptibility artifacts, and systematically evaluated various adhesives.</p> Materials and methods <p>Thirty-one adhesives were applied in constrained/unconstrained geometries and imaged with T2*-weighted EPI at 7.0 and 9.4&#xa0;T to assess artifact depths. Spherical and flat patch shapes, both unconstrained geometries, were compared for artifact depth in vitro and in vivo. Adhesion strength was assessed on post-mortem mouse crania. Finally, an integrative scoring system rated adhesive properties, including artifact depth, handling, and adhesion strength.</p> Results <p>Susceptibility artifacts were two times larger at 9.4 than at 7.0&#xa0;T (<i>p</i> &lt; 0.001), strongest at the patch edges, and deeper with spherical than flat patches (<i>p</i> &lt; 0.05). Artifact size depended more on shape and volume after curing than adhesive type. Our integrative scoring system showed resins, bonding agents, and acrylics offered the best overall properties, while silicones and cements were less favorable.</p> Discussion <p>Adhesive selection requires balancing handling, curing time, strength, and artifact depth. To minimize artifacts, adhesives should be applied in a spread-out, flat and thin layer. Our integrative scoring system supports classification of future classes of adhesives.</p>

错误：搜索内容不能为空，请输入英文关键词
错误：关键词超出字数限制，请精简
高级检索

Systematic evaluation of adhesives for implant fixation in multimodal functional brain MRI

  • 期刊论文

  • 出版模式：

    开放获取

  • 发表日期：

    2025年1月15日

查看全文
  • Anna Zsófia Szinyei,
  • Bastian Maus,
  • Jonas Q. Schmid,
  • Matthias Klimek,
  • Daniel Segelcke,
  • Esther M. Pogatzki-Zahn,
  • Bruno Pradier,
  • Cornelius Faber

摘要

Objective

Invasive multimodal fMRI in rodents is often compromised by susceptibility artifacts from adhesives used to secure cranial implants. We hypothesized that adhesive type, shape, and field strength significantly affect susceptibility artifacts, and systematically evaluated various adhesives.

Materials and methods

Thirty-one adhesives were applied in constrained/unconstrained geometries and imaged with T2*-weighted EPI at 7.0 and 9.4 T to assess artifact depths. Spherical and flat patch shapes, both unconstrained geometries, were compared for artifact depth in vitro and in vivo. Adhesion strength was assessed on post-mortem mouse crania. Finally, an integrative scoring system rated adhesive properties, including artifact depth, handling, and adhesion strength.

Results

Susceptibility artifacts were two times larger at 9.4 than at 7.0 T (p < 0.001), strongest at the patch edges, and deeper with spherical than flat patches (p < 0.05). Artifact size depended more on shape and volume after curing than adhesive type. Our integrative scoring system showed resins, bonding agents, and acrylics offered the best overall properties, while silicones and cements were less favorable.

Discussion

Adhesive selection requires balancing handling, curing time, strength, and artifact depth. To minimize artifacts, adhesives should be applied in a spread-out, flat and thin layer. Our integrative scoring system supports classification of future classes of adhesives.