Salivary levels of eluents during Invisalign™ treatment with attachments: an in vivo investigation.

BACKGROUND: The aim of the present study was to investigate qualitatively and quantitatively the elution of substances from polyester-urethane (Invisalign™) aligners and resin composite attachments (Tetric EvoFlow) in vivo. METHODS: Patients (n = 11) treated with the aligners and attachments (16 per patient, without other composite restorations) for an average of 20 months, who were planned for attachment removed were enrolled in the study. Patients were instructed to rinse with 50 mL of distilled water upon entry and the rinsing solution was collected (before removal). Then, the attachments were removed with low-speed tungsten carbide burs for adhesive residue removal, a thorough water rinsing was performed immediately after the grinding process to discard grinding particle residues, and subsequently, after a second water-rinsing the solution was collected for analysis (after removal). The rinsing solutions were analyzed for targeted (LC-MS/MS: Bis-GMA, DCDMA, UDMA, BPA) and untargeted (LC-HRMS: screening of leached species and their degradation products) compounds. RESULTS: Targeted analysis revealed a significant reduction in BPA after attachment removal (4 times lower). Bis-GMA, DCDMA, UDMA were below the detection limit before removal but were all detectable after removal with Bis-GMA and UDMA at quantifiable levels. Untargeted analysis reviled the presence of mono-methacrylate transformation products of Bis-GMA (Bis-GMA-M1) and UDMA (UDMA-M1), UDMA without methacrylate moieties (UDMA-M2), and 4-(dimethylamino) benzoic acid (DMAB), the degradation product of the photo-initiator ethyl-4-(dimethylamino) benzoate (EDMAB), all after attachment removal. Several amino acids and endogenous metabolites were also found both before and after removal. CONCLUSIONS: Elevated levels of BPA were traced instantaneously in patients treated with Invisalign™ and flowable resin composite attachments for the testing period. BPA was reduced after attachment removal, but residual monomers and resin degradation products were found after removal. Alternative resin formulations and attachment materials may be utilized to reduce eluents.

Value of FDG-PET/MR in Oral Focus Assessment in Head and Neck Cancer Patients-A Feasibility Study.

FDG-PET/MR is a hybrid imaging modality used for the staging and restaging of advanced head & neck cancer (HNC) patients. Their treatment typically involves radiation therapy, which requires previous dental focus assessment. The aim of this study was to analyze if staging FDG-PET/MR is a valuable tool for oral focus assessment. For this purpose, FDG-PET/MR findings, such as metabolic activity of periapical radiolucencies and marginal periodontitis, were retrospectively compared with conventional standardized dental focus assessment, including dental radiographs and clinical assessment of 124 teeth in seven patients. Increased FDG uptake of periapical lesions was found in one out of 23 lesions. Increased FDG uptake of the marginal periodontium was recorded in one out of 34 lesions. In summary, standardized dental focus assessment by panoramic radiography and periapical radiographs may be enriched by information from FDG-PET/MR, showing active inflammation in dental foci. However, many dental foci have no correlate in FDG-PET/MR. The treatment decision for oral foci may benefit from the visualized presence or absence of metabolic activity on FDG-PET/MR.

Improving headgear wear: why force level and direction of traction matter.

BACKGROUND: Empiric data on headgear wear are scarce. The aim was to examine a possible discrepancy between the duration of wearing and force application, and whether such a difference is influenced by force level or direction of traction. MATERIALS AND METHODS: In this retrospective analysis, 122 consecutive patients were included. All were treated with headgear (three subgroups: high-pull headgear [n = 60], cervical-pull headgear [n = 32], and high-pull headgear in combination with an activator [n = 30]) and were monitored for three successive months using an electronic module. The device recorded chronographically the measured force magnitude and temperature, allowing to differentiate between the duration of headgear wear (recorded body temperature) and actual force application (recorded force). RESULTS: For all subgroups, the average recorded force application was lower than wear time (mean inactivity during wear: 15.9 ± 22.8 minutes/night). The direction of traction significantly influenced the extent and length of wear time without force application (P < 0.001): patients with cervical-pull headgear were more prone to inactive wear time (27.7 minutes/night) than patients with high-pull headgear (13.7 minutes/night) or with headgear-activator (7.8 minutes/night). The observed inter-individual variability of inactive wear time was considerable (0-134 minutes/night). The mean applied force was highly significantly associated with inactive wear time (correlation coefficient: -0.575; P < 0.001), and force levels below 250 g seem particularly related to episodes of inactivity. CONCLUSIONS: There is a clear incongruity between the duration of headgear wear and the duration of force application. Inactive wear time is influenced by the direction of traction and force level applied. Clinicians should be aware of the likelihood of periods of inactive wear time and researchers should search for options to reduce or even eliminate these periods.