RESUMO
BACKGROUND: The aim of this clinical prospective study is to apply and evaluate an approach to reduce the overall orthodontic treatment time, by means of dentoalveolar distraction osteogenesis to achieve rapid canine retraction using an indigenously developed intra-oral tooth-borne distraction device. MATERIALS & METHODS: This study was carried out in the Department of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics. Four patients selected for the purpose of Maxillary and/or Mandibular canine distraction with a rigid custom-made, intra-oral distraction device made of stainless steel and were scheduled for orthodontic treatment with bilateral first premolar extraction and then subsequent bilateral canine teeth distalization. RESULTS: In all the patients the canine teeth moved distally and made contact with the second premolars within 14-16 days range after which they were kept passive, with the appliance for a week of consolidation. The amount of canine retraction was in 7-7.5mms range, in all the patients, in each of the four quadrants studied. Bodily movement, tipping and buccal flaring of the canine teeth were noticed in all the cases. CONCLUSION: Combination of newer orthodontic appliances and the principles of biomechanics to maintain the control over rapid tooth movement, rapid canine distalization using distraction osteogenesis awaits further development before routine application, of this innovative and exciting approach. How to cite the article: Nair A, Kumar JP, Venkataramana V, Yuvaraj A, Reddy VS, Kumar SK. Dento-Alveolar distraction osteogenesis using rigid intra-oral tooth borne distraction device. J Int Oral Health 2014;6(2):106-13.
RESUMO
BACKGROUND: The present in-vitro study was a scanning electron microscope (SEM) study conducted in primary teeth in order to evaluate the erosive potential of ten commonly used pediatric liquid medications (PLMs). MATERIALS & METHODS: 10 commonly used PLMs and 33 exfoliated or extracted primary teeth were collected. The 33 teeth were divided into two groups, the control group (n=3) and the study group (n=30). The endogenous pH of all the teeth was measured using a pH electrode meter. The control group teeth were immersed in artificial saliva for three different time intervals- 1 minute, 10 minutes and 8 hours. The study group teeth were also maintained for 1 minute, 10 minutes and 8 hours in various selected PLMs. The primary enamel surface (PES) changes were then observed under the SEM for all the teeth of both groups. RESULTS: All the PLMs used in the study showed an erosive effect on the PES when viewed under SEM. Majority of the medications caused etched prism pattern followed by crater formation and sporadic rod ends in that order on PES. CONCLUSION: There is a need to educate parents and professionals about the association between dental erosion and PLMs which predisposes to dental caries. How to cite the article: Tupalli AR, Satish B, Shetty BR, Battu S, Kumar JP, Nagaraju B. Evaluation of the Erosive Potential of Various Pediatric Liquid Medicaments: An In-vitro Study. J Int Oral Health 2014;6(1):59-65.
RESUMO
BACKGROUND: This study was undertaken to compare the retention between sectional border molding using low fusing greenstick compound and single step border molding using condensation silicone (putty) impression material in three stages- A. Immediately following border molding, B. After final impression and C. With the finished permanent denture base. MATERIALS & METHODS: In this study evaluation of retentive values of sectional border molding (Group I) (custom impression trays border molded with green stick compound ) and single step border molding (Group II) ( border molding with condensation silicone (putty) impression material ). In both techniques definitive wash impression were made with light body condensation silicone and permanent denture base with heat cure polymerization resin. RESULTS: Group II was significantly higher (mean=8011.43) than Group I (mean=5777.43) in test-A. The t-value (1.5883) infers that there was significant difference between Group I and Group II (p =0.15). Group I was significantly higher (mean=6718.57) than Group II (mean=5224.29) in test -B. The t-value (1.6909) infers that there was significant difference between Group I and Group II (p=0.17). Group II was higher (mean=4025.14) than Group I (mean=3835.07) in test -C. The t-value was 0.1239. But it was found to be statistically insignificant (p=0.005). CONCLUSION: Within the limitation of this clinical study border molding custom tray with low fusing green stick compound provided similar retention as compared to custom impression tray with condensation silicone in permanent denture base. How to cite this article: Yarapatineni R, Vilekar A, Kumar JP, Kumar GA, Aravind P, Kumar PA. Comparative evaluation of border molding, using two different techniques in maxillary edentulous arches - An in vivo study. J Int Oral Health 2013; 5(6):82-7 .