Age estimation of Hispanic children in the United States: Development and validation of dental reference dataset based on two staging systems.

Dental tissues follow a systematic pattern of development and several radiological methods have been developed and validated. This study aims to develop and validate a reference data set (RDS) for dental development of Hispanic children and to compare the mean age using the Demirjian and Moorrees tooth developmental stage (TDS) systems. A total of 600 Dental Panoramic Tomographs (DPTs) of Hispanic children aged 6 to 17 years were obtained and reference datasets (RDS) were developed by scoring all the maxillary and mandibular teeth in the left side of the arch according to the Demirjian (8 stage) and Moorrees (14 stage) scoring systems. To validate the RDS, 120 (DPTs) separate from the RDS were randomly selected, and dental ages were calculated from the RDS using unweighted and five weighted mean average methods. Statistical significance was set at p < 0.05, and a paired t-test was conducted to compare the difference between Chronological Age (CA) and Dental Age (DA) for each weighting method. For the 8-stage system, the mean (sd, se) difference between CA and DA for the unweighted method was 0.04 (0.51, 0.065) years for males, and 0.07 (0.41, 0.053) years for females. The difference was not statistically significant for all five weighting methods (p > 0.05). For the 14-stage system, CA-DA for the unweighted method was 0.17 (0.33, 0.042) years for males, and 0.13 (0.41, 0.053) years for females. The difference was statistically significant for most of the Moorrees methods (p < 0.05). Dental age derived from the unweighted average method using the reference dataset derived from Demirjian's 8-stage system is recommended for dental age estimation in Hispanic children and adolescents.

Prospective Randomized Clinical Trial of Primary Molar Crowns: 24-Month Results.

Purpose: The purpose of this study was to evaluate the clinical success of a new primary zirconia molar crown compared with stainless steel crowns (SSCs). Methods: This randomized, controlled clinical trial was designed as a split-mouth study. Fifty three- to seven-year-old children were recruited to provide a total of 50 pairs of teeth requiring primary molar crowns, with each participant receiving a SSC and zirconia crown. Restorations were evaluated at six-month, 12-month, and 24-month recall appointments examining the following criteria: gingival health; estimate of extent the crown was high in occlusion; surface roughness; staining on crown surface; wear of opposing arch tooth; color match; anatomic form; marginal integrity; marginal discoloration; proximal contact area; secondary caries at crown margin; and parent/guardian satisfaction with crown appearance. Results: The 24-month follow-up included 39 patients (78 percent). Seventy crowns (70 percent) were evaluated; of the 36 zirconia crowns and 34 SSCs, there were no failures at the 24-month evaluation. The only significant difference in the parameters evaluated was in parental satisfaction with the zirconia crown preference (P<0.05). Conclusion: Current 24-month results indicate that zirconia primary molar crowns perform similarly to an established stainless steel crown for restoration of primary molar teeth.

Should Attendance Be Required in Lecture Classrooms in Dental Education? Two Viewpoints: Viewpoint 1: Attendance in the Lecture Classroom Should Be Required and Viewpoint 2: Attendance Should Not Be Required in the Lecture Classroom.

This Point/Counterpoint discusses the long-argued debate over whether lecture attendance in dental school at the predoctoral level should be required. Current educational practice relies heavily on the delivery of content in a traditional lecture style. Viewpoint 1 asserts that attendance should be required for many reasons, including the positive impact that direct contact of students with faculty members and with each other has on learning outcomes. In lectures, students can more easily focus on subject matter that is often difficult to understand. A counter viewpoint argues that required attendance is not necessary and that student engagement is more important than physical classroom attendance. This viewpoint notes that recent technologies support active learning strategies that better engage student participation, fostering independent learning that is not supported in the traditional large lecture classroom and argues that dental education requires assimilation of complex concepts and applying them to patient care, which passing a test does not ensure. The two positions agree that attendance does not guarantee learning and that, with the surge of information technologies, it is more important than ever to teach students how to learn. At this time, research does not show conclusively if attendance in any type of setting equals improved learning or ability to apply knowledge.