Exploring the sex-associated differences in molars fused roots.

BACKGROUND: Human sexual dimorphism is associated with many biological characteristics, including dental variables. OBJECTIVES: To investigate if molars fused roots present sex-associated differences. METHODS: Panoramic radiographs were used to investigate the frequency and distribution of permanent molars fused roots. Only patients with all first and second permanent molars were included. Third molars were not investigated. Any molar with roots fused apical to the usual furcal position were considered molar fused roots. Comparisons between males and females were performed using chi-square or Fisher's and Mann-Whitney tests and the established alpha was 5% (p<0.05). Sex-differential liability models were also proposed. RESULTS: A total of 84 males and 86 females were included and 1360 molars were analyzed. Among them, 46 (26.06%) present at least one molar with fused root. Second maxillary molars were the most affected teeth. There was an association between sex and molars with fused roots. Females had a 3.4 higher chance to present fused roots than males (OR=3.4, CI 95% 1.6-6.8; p=0.0008). The female: male ratio of molars with fused roots was 2.5:1. The number of molars with fused roots ranged from 1 to 6 per patient, and the mean number of Females presented more molars with fused roots (mean = 1.01; standard deviation = 1.52) than males (mean = 0.31; standard deviation = 0.85) (p<0.05). CONCLUSIONS: Molar fused root of permanent teeth presents sex-associated differences, in which females are more affected than males. Our results support sex-differential liability models for molars fused roots.

Evaluation of Endo 10 mobile application as diagnostic tool in endodontics.

Background: Endodontic diagnosis can be compared to a puzzle, requiring the interpretation of a series of clinical and imaging data. Mobile health, especially mobile application (apps), can assist professionals in endodontic diagnosis. This work aims to evaluate an app - Endo 10 app, designed to assist pulpal and periapical diagnosis based on the patient's signs and symptoms and radiographic data. Material and Methods: A total of 41 dental students and dentists with different levels of expertise (10 multi-specialty clinic professors, 17 residents in endodontics and 14 dental students) were included. The System Usability Scale (SUS) was used to evaluate usability and the Davis' technology acceptance model was used to evaluate usefulness of Endo 10 app. The Mann-Whitney test was performed to compare SUS scores between professors and undergraduate dental students and to compare questions 6 and 7 of the utility test and verify whether participants who understood that the technology was useful also better understood the concepts of endodontic diagnosis. The agreement between professor's diagnosis with the app and professor without the app, and between professor and residents in endodontics with the app were evaluated. Results: The SUS score at the 50th percentile was 77.5, graded as acceptable. No significant difference was observed in the SUS scores when analyzing professors and dental students separately (p = 0.442). Usefulness test showed positive responses ranging between 72% - 100%. No statistically significant difference was observed between questions 6 and 7 of the utility test (p = 0.206), indicating that the group of participants who understood that the technology was useful in endodontic diagnosis was associated with the agreement that the application helped to better understand the concepts related. The diagnosis agreement between professor in the common diagnosis process and professor with app was 100% (31) of cases. The concordance between professor and residents in endodontics with the app was 71% (22) of cases. The differences were associated with resident's misinterpreting the patient's data. Conclusions: The Endo 10 app reached the usability and usefulness requirements. It proved accurate in diagnosing pulpal and periapical pathologies. Key words:Dental education, endodontics, diagnosis, smartphone, dental informatics.

Retrospective analysis of survival of avulsed and replanted permanent teeth according to 2012 or 2020 IADT Guidelines.

This study aimed to compare the survival of replanted teeth that followed the 2012 or the 2020 International Association of Dental Traumatology (IADT) guidelines. Sixty-two permanent replanted teeth were retrospectively assessed (IADT 2012, n = 45; IADT 2020, n = 17). Five years after replantation (from January 2017 to December 2021), clinical and radiographic examinations were performed. A significance level of 95% was considered to evaluate the outcomes. Thirty-one teeth (50.0%) remained in their sockets and 31 (50.0%) were lost due to external root resorption. Of the 25 (40.3%) teeth replanted within one hour, 16 (64.0%) remained in their sockets, and 9 (36.0%) were lost. Twenty-two (71.0%) of all 31 lost teeth had an extra-alveolar time of more than one hour. Twelve teeth remained in their sockets without resorption: 8 (66.7%) were replanted within one hour, 2 (16.7%) followed the 2012 IADT, and 2 (16.7%) the 2020 IADT guidelines for late replantation. There was a significant difference (p <0.05) in the extra-alveolar time (< one hour), but without difference between the guidelines in late replantation (p > 0.05). Replanted teeth following both, 2012 or 2020 IADT guidelines, have similar clinical outcomes. The extra-alveolar time of less than one hour was demonstrated to be important to keep the permanent tooth in its socket.

Retrospective analysis of survival of avulsed and replanted permanent teeth according to 2012 or 2020 IADT Guidelines

Abstract This study aimed to compare the survival of replanted teeth that followed the 2012 or the 2020 International Association of Dental Traumatology (IADT) guidelines. Sixty-two permanent replanted teeth were retrospectively assessed (IADT 2012, n = 45; IADT 2020, n = 17). Five years after replantation (from January 2017 to December 2021), clinical and radiographic examinations were performed. A significance level of 95% was considered to evaluate the outcomes. Thirty-one teeth (50.0%) remained in their sockets and 31 (50.0%) were lost due to external root resorption. Of the 25 (40.3%) teeth replanted within one hour, 16 (64.0%) remained in their sockets, and 9 (36.0%) were lost. Twenty-two (71.0%) of all 31 lost teeth had an extra-alveolar time of more than one hour. Twelve teeth remained in their sockets without resorption: 8 (66.7%) were replanted within one hour, 2 (16.7%) followed the 2012 IADT, and 2 (16.7%) the 2020 IADT guidelines for late replantation. There was a significant difference (p <0.05) in the extra-alveolar time (< one hour), but without difference between the guidelines in late replantation (p > 0.05). Replanted teeth following both, 2012 or 2020 IADT guidelines, have similar clinical outcomes. The extra-alveolar time of less than one hour was demonstrated to be important to keep the permanent tooth in its socket.

Resumo Este estudo teve como objetivo comparar a sobrevida, por cinco anos, de dentes reimplantados que seguiram as diretrizes de 2012 ou 2020 da International Association of Dental Traumatology (IADT). Sessenta e dois dentes permanentes reimplantados foram avaliados retrospectivamente (IADT 2012, n = 45; IADT 2020, n = 17). Cinco anos após o reimplante, foram realizados exames clínicos e radiográficos. Foi considerado um nível de significância de 95% para avaliar os desfechos. Trinta e um dentes (50,0%) permaneceram em seus alvéolos e 31 (50,0%) foram perdidos por reabsorção radicular externa. Dos 25 (40,3%) dentes reimplantados em uma hora, 16 (64,0%) permaneceram em seus alvéolos e 9 (36,0%) foram perdidos. Vinte e dois (71,0%) de todos os 31 dentes perdidos tiveram um tempo extra-alveolar superior a uma hora. Doze dentes permaneceram em seus alvéolos sem reabsorção: 8 (66,7%) foram reimplantados em uma hora, 2 (16,7%) seguiram a IADT de 2012 e 2 (16,7%) as diretrizes da IADT de 2020 para reimplante tardio. Houve diferença significativa (p<0,05) no tempo extra-alveolar (< uma hora), mas sem diferença entre as diretrizes no reimplante tardio (p > 0,05). Dentes reimplantados seguindo as diretrizes de 2012 ou 2020 da IADT, tiveram taxas de sucesso semelhantes. O tempo extra-alveolar inferior a uma hora demonstrou ser importante para manter o dente permanente em seu alvéolo.