A Comparative Evaluation of Technical, Financial, and Imaging Performance Between 1.5 Tesla and 3 Tesla MRI Systems for Clinical Applications

  • Mihaela MARIN “Dunarea de Jos” University of Galati, Romania
  • Roxana OPREA “Dunarea de Jos” University of Galati, Romania
  • Florin-Bogdan MARIN “Dunarea de Jos” University of Galati, Romania
Keywords: magnetic resonance imaging, 1.5 Tesla MRI, 3 Tesla MRI, diagnostic imaging, technical performance

Abstract

This paper presents a structured comparative assessment between 1.5 T and 3 T Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI) systems, focusing on technical specifications, economic impact, and diagnostic image quality. Data compiled from manufacturer documentation and clinical usage evaluations reveal that 3 T systems provide higher spatial resolution, improved signal-to-noise ratio (SNR), shorter image acquisition times, and reduced artefact levels. However, these advantages come with substantially increased acquisition and operational costs. The study concludes with recommendations tailored to clinical needs, highlighting that 3 T systems are suited for advanced imaging applications, while 1.5 T platforms remain economically viable for standard diagnostic procedures.

Creative Commons License

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

References

[1]. Wu M., Zhang L., Li C., 3 T vs 1.5 T MRI: the good, the bad and the ugly, Insights into Imaging, vol. 12, p. 113, 2021.
[2]. Wiersma H. W., Weber M. A., Cost-effectiveness of 3 T MRI versus 1.5 T in knee imaging, RöFo – Fortschr. Röntgenstr., vol. 190, no. 3, p. 272-279, 2020.
[3]. Potter K. A., Matson M. B., 1.5 T vs 3 T MRI: clinical implications, Investigative Radiology, vol. 56, no. 11, 2021.
[4]. Radiopaedia Contributors, 1.5 T vs 3 T MRI: technical comparison, Radiopaedia, 2021.
[5]. Taylor C. M., Nguyen D., Comparison of diagnostic performance of brain MRI at 1.5 T vs 3 T, Am. J. Roentgenol., vol. 221, no. 1, p. 45-52, 2023.
[6]. Costantino L., Schmidt N., Economic viability of 3 T MRI in oncology centers, J. Clin. Neurosci., vol. 102, p. 134-139, 2023.
[7]. Liao B., Chen Y., Wang Z., A comparative study on 1.5 T-3 T MRI conversion through deep neural network, arXiv preprint, 2022.
[8]. Iglesias J. E., Billot B., Accurate super-resolution low-field brain MRI, arXiv preprint, 2022.
[9]. Kaur P., Minhas A. S., Ahuja C. K., Estimation of 3 T MR images from 1.5 T images, arXiv preprint, 2024.
[10]. Chakravarty A., Debnath J., Life cycle costing of MRI machine, J. Clin. Imaging Sci., vol. 10, p. 81, 2020.
[11]. Ezra Medical, 3 T vs 1.5 T MRI: how do they compare?, Ezra Medical Blog, 2023.
[12]. RITE Advantage, MRI 1.5 T vs 3.0 T – what is the difference?, RITE Clinical Education, 2022.
[13]. Mahajan A., Raman S., Cost-effectiveness of specialized MRI for dizziness, Am. J. Roentgenol., vol. 221, no. 4, 2023.
[14]. Pisch R., Becker C. R., Comparison of abdominal imaging at 1.5 T vs 3 T, Radiographics, vol. 41, no. 3, p. 741-758, 2021.
[15]. Vilanova J. C., Low-field vs high-field MRI: cost-effectiveness study, Eur. Soc. Radiol. Conf. Proc., 2025.
[16]. Radiopaedia Contributors, 1.5 T vs 3 T MRI: artifact and SNR considerations, Radiopaedia, 2021.
Published
2025-09-15
How to Cite
1.
MARIN M, OPREA R, MARIN F-B. A Comparative Evaluation of Technical, Financial, and Imaging Performance Between 1.5 Tesla and 3 Tesla MRI Systems for Clinical Applications. The Annals of “Dunarea de Jos” University of Galati. Fascicle IX, Metallurgy and Materials Science [Internet]. 15Sep.2025 [cited 3Nov.2025];48(3):5-. Available from: https://gup.ugal.ro/ugaljournals/index.php/mms/article/view/9314
Section
Articles

Most read articles by the same author(s)

<< < 1 2 3 > >>