Aims and Scope
Recent Articles
Assessment of Trabecular Bone During Dental Implant Planning using Cone-beam Computed Tomography with High-resolution Parameters
Lauren Bohner, Pedro Tortamano, Felix Gremse, Israel Chilvarquer, Johannes Kleinheinz, Marcel Hanisch
Background:
Cone-Beam Computed Tomography (CBCT) with high-resolution parameters may provide an acceptable resolution for bone assessment.
Objectives:
The purpose of this study is to assess trabecular bone using two cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) devices with high-resolution parameters in comparison to micro-computed tomography (µCT).
Methods:
Bone samples (n=8) were acquired from dry mandibles and scanned by two CBCT devices: 1) VV (Veraview R100, Morita; FOV 4x4, 75kV, 9mA, voxel size 0.125µm); and PR (Prexion 3D, Prexion; FOV 5x5, 90kV, 4mA, 37s, voxel size 108µm). Gold-standard images were acquired using µCT (SkyScan 1272; Bruker; 80kV, 125mA, voxel size 16µm). Morphometric parameters (BvTv- Bone Volume Fraction, BsBv- Trabecular specific surface, TbTh- Trabecular thickness and TbSp- Trabecular separation) were measured. Statistical analysis was performed within ANOVA, Spearman Correlation test and Bland-Altmann plots with a statistical significance level at p=0.05.
Results:
CBCT devices showed similar BvTv values in comparison to µCT. No statistical difference was found for BvTv parameters assessed by CBCT devices and µCT. BsBv values were underestimated by CBCT devices (p<0.01), whereas TbTh and TbSp values were overestimated by them (p<0.01). Positive correlations were found between VV and µCT measurements for BvTv (r2= 0.65, p=0.00), such as between PR and µCT measurements for TbSp (r2= 0.50, p=0.04). For BsBv measurements, PR was negatively correlated with µCT (r2= -0.643, p=0.01).
Conclusion:
The evaluated CBCT device was able to assess trabecular bone. However, bone parameters were under or overestimated in comparison to µCT.
February 16, 2021
Articles
- February 16, 2021
Oral Health Knowledge, Behaviour, and Access to Dental Care in Visually Impaired Individuals in Jordan: A Case-Control Study
February 16, 2021Dental Education in the COVID-19 Era: Challenges, Solutions and Oppor- tunities
February 15, 2021
Quality of Life in Oral Submucous Fibrosis- A Case Report with a Literature Review
February 12, 2021
Surgical Field Isolation Through Rubber Dam to Prevent COVID-19 Exposure During Tooth Extraction: Case Report
February 16, 2021
Multimodal Protocol for the Treatment of Odontogenic Keratocysts
February 16, 2021
Effect of Finishing and Polishing on The Surface Roughness of Bulk Fill Composites
Editor's Choice
Evaluation of Five Different Desensitizers: A Comparative Dentin Permeability and SEM Investigation In Vitro
Nasibe Aycan Yilmaz, Ertan Ertas, Hasan Orucoğlu
Background/Objective:
The purpose of this study was to evaluate the efficacy and durability of five different dentin desensitizers (Gluma Desensitizer Powergel, Bifluorid 12, Gluma Self Etch Bond, D/Sense Crystal, Nupro Sensodyne Prophylaxis Paste with Novamin) on tubule occlusion and dentin permeability reduction in vitro.
Method:
The quantitative changes in permeability of 100 dentin discs were measured after desensitizer treatments and following post-treatments of 6% citric acid challenge for 1 min or immersion in artificial saliva for 24 hours under hydrostatic pressure generated by a computerised fluid filtration meter. Qualitative SEM analyses were also carried out.
Results:
Dentin permeability decreased after desensitizer application in all groups. Nevertheless, only the difference between ‘Gluma Self Etch Bond’ and ‘Nupro Sensodyne Prophylaxis Paste with Novamin’ groups was significantly different (p<0.05). Dentin permeability increased significantly after post-treatments (p<0.05). There was no statistically difference among the citric acid-subgroups (p>0.05). Of all the artificial saliva-subgroups, only the difference between ‘D/Sense Crystal’ and ‘Bifluorid 12’ was significantly different (p<0.05). In SEM analysis, morphological changes were detected on the dentin surface and within the tubules following desensitizer treatments and post-treatments.
Conclusion:
All the desensitizers significantly reduced dentin permeability by changing the morphology of the dentin surface and/or dentinal tubules. Following post-treatments, there was some reduction in the efficacy of the desensitizers which was represented by the reduction in permeability values. SEM analysis revealed some physical changes in the dentin structure which can partly give an explanation to the reduced efficacy of tested desensitizers.
January 31, 2017
Other Post
- January 31, 2017
Alveolar Bone Fracture: Pathognomonic Sign for Clinical Diagnosis
August 31, 2017
Molar Uprighting: A Considerable and Safe Decision to Avoid Prosthetic Treatment
October 24, 2017
Oral Leiomyoma in an Adult Male: A Case Report
June 30, 2017
Insight into Oral Biofilm: Primary, Secondary and Residual Caries and Phyto-Challenged Solutions
May 31, 2017
Maxillary Overdenture Retained with an Implant Support CAD-CAM Bar: A 4 Years Follow Up Case
March 31, 2017
A 5-week Non-Surgical Approach towards Denture Induced Hyperplasia
