MATERIALS AND METHODS: The samples were randomly selected from different states of Pakistan. Total 7168 variables were measured on plaster dental casts (128) and SM digital dental models (128) according to the selection criteria. For IMTSD, the 6 variable measured as for anterior tooth size (maxilla, mandibular), overall tooth size (maxilla, mandibular), Bolton's anterior ratios (BAR), and Bolton's overall ratios (BOR). The independent t-test and ANOVA were used for statistical analyses.
RESULTS: Significant sexual disparities in the sum of anterior tooth size and overall tooth size via DC and SM methods. No significant sexual disparities for BAR and BOR. No statistically significant differences were found in BAR and BOR between DC and SM. No significant differences were found on IMTSD ratio among different arch length and arch perimeters groups.
CONCLUSIONS: Norms were developed based on DC and SM for IMTSD. Sexual disparities were observed in the sum of teeth size. However, no significant differences in BAR and BOR for IMTSD between the two methods.
OBJECTIVE: The present study aims to assess knowledge and awareness regarding needle stick and sharp injury among dental personnel and compared the knowledge and awareness level about needle stick injuries between dental professionals and dental supporting staff working at the School of Dental Sciences, Universiti Sains Malaysia.
METHODS: This cross-sectional study was conducted from March 2016 to March 2017. The total sample included 112 registered dental personnel including dental professionals (lecturers, dental officers, and postgraduate students) and dental supportive staff (including staff nurses and dental surgery assistant) who were selected from the School of Dental Sciences, Universiti Sains Malaysia at Kelantan District of Malaysia. Data were collected by a structured questionnaire.
RESULTS: In our study 60.7% respondents answered correctly for all the statements regarding knowledge and 51.8% of the respondents answered correctly for the statements regarding awareness on needle stick and sharp injury. No significant difference of knowledge level has been observed between the dental professionals and dental supportive staff (p
Method: Scopus, PubMed, and Web of Science (all databases) were searched by 2 reviewers until 29th October 2020. Articles were screened and narratively synthesized according to PRISMA-DTA guidelines based on predefined eligibility criteria. Articles that made direct reference test comparisons to human clinicians were evaluated using the MI-CLAIM checklist. The risk of bias was assessed by JBI-DTA critical appraisal, and certainty of the evidence was evaluated using the GRADE approach. Information regarding the quantification method of dental pain and disease, the conditional characteristics of both training and test data cohort in the machine learning, diagnostic outcomes, and diagnostic test comparisons with clinicians, where applicable, were extracted.
Results: 34 eligible articles were found for data synthesis, of which 8 articles made direct reference comparisons to human clinicians. 7 papers scored over 13 (out of the evaluated 15 points) in the MI-CLAIM approach with all papers scoring 5+ (out of 7) in JBI-DTA appraisals. GRADE approach revealed serious risks of bias and inconsistencies with most studies containing more positive cases than their true prevalence in order to facilitate machine learning. Patient-perceived symptoms and clinical history were generally found to be less reliable than radiographs or histology for training accurate machine learning models. A low agreement level between clinicians training the models was suggested to have a negative impact on the prediction accuracy. Reference comparisons found nonspecialized clinicians with less than 3 years of experience to be disadvantaged against trained models.
Conclusion: Machine learning in dental and orofacial healthcare has shown respectable results in diagnosing diseases with symptomatic pain and with improved future iterations and can be used as a diagnostic aid in the clinics. The current review did not internally analyze the machine learning models and their respective algorithms, nor consider the confounding variables and factors responsible for shaping the orofacial disorders responsible for eliciting pain.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: The calculated sample size was 128 subjects. The crown width/height, arch length, arch perimeter, and arch width of the maxilla and mandible were obtained via digital calliper (Mitutoyo, Japan). A total of 4325 variables were measured. The sex differences in the crown width and height were evaluated. Analysis of variance was applied to evaluate the differences between arch length, arch perimeter, and arch width groups.
RESULTS: Males had significantly larger mean values for crown width and height than females (P ≤ 0.05) for maxillary and mandibular arches, both. There were no significant differences observed for the crown width/height ratio in various arch length, arch perimeter, and arch width (intercanine, interpremolar, and intermolar) groups (P ≤ 0.05) in maxilla and mandible, both.
CONCLUSIONS: Our results indicate sexual disparities in the crown width and height. Crown width and height has no significant relation to various arch length, arch perimeter, and arch width groups of maxilla and mandible. Thus, it may be helpful for orthodontic and prosthodontic case investigations and comprehensive management.
METHOD: A total of one hundred and seven patients from age five to twelve years old with non-syndromic unilateral cleft lip and palate were included in the study. These patients have received cheiloplasty and one stage palatoplasty surgery but yet to receive alveolar bone grafting procedure. Five assessors trained in the use of the EUROCRAN index underwent calibration exercise and ranked the dental arch relationships and palatal morphology of the patients' study models. For intra-rater agreement, the examiners scored the models twice, with two weeks interval in between sessions. Variable factors of the patients were collected and they included gender, site, type and, family history of unilateral cleft lip and palate; absence of lateral incisor on cleft side, cheiloplasty and palatoplasty technique used. Associations between various factors and dental arch relationships were assessed using logistic regression analysis.
RESULT: Dental arch relationship among unilateral cleft lip and palate in local population had relatively worse scoring than other parts of the world. Crude logistics regression analysis did not demonstrate any significant associations among the various socio-demographic factors, cheiloplasty and palatoplasty techniques used with the dental arch relationship outcome.
CONCLUSIONS: This study has limitations that might have affected the results, example: having multiple operators performing the surgeries and the inability to access the influence of underlying genetic predisposed cranio-facial variability. These may have substantial influence on the treatment outcome. The factors that can affect unilateral cleft lip and palate treatment outcome is multifactorial in nature and remained controversial in general.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: The cytotoxicity was studied by examining the hFOB cell response by MTT assessment. The cell morphology was evaluated by inverted microscopy and observed under scanning electronic microscopy (SEM).
RESULTS: MTT assay results displayed that the Cu content on the surface of Ti-6Al-7Nb alloys did not produce any cytotoxic effect on cell viability. The cell viability rate in all samples ranges from 97% to 126%, indicating that hFOB cells grew at a high proliferation rate. However, no significant differences in cell viability were observed between Ti and Ti Cu and between Ti HA and Ti Cu/HA groups. Microscopic examination demonstrated no difference in the cell morphology of hFOB among all samples. In addition, SEM observation indicated favorable adhesion and spreading of the cells on the coated and uncoated samples.
CONCLUSIONS: The surface modification of Ti-6Al-7Nb alloy with Cu, HA, and Cu/HA exhibits good cell biocompatibility, and the Cu has no influence on the cell proliferation and differentiation of hFOB.