Functional educational characterisation of the utility of embalming fluids for anatomical education and research

Human cadavers have long been used to teach human anatomy and are increasingly used in other disciplines. Different embalming techniques have been reported in the literature; however there is no clear consensus on the opinion of anatomists on the utility of embalmed cadavers for the teaching of anatomy. To this end, we aimed to survey British and Irish anatomy teachers to report their opinions on different preservation methods for the teaching of anatomy. In this project eight human cadavers were embalmed using formalin, Genelyn, Thiel and Imperial College London- Soft Preserving (ICL-SP) techniques to compare different characteristics of these four techniques. The results of this thesis show that anatomy teachers consider hard-fixed cadavers not to be the most accurate teaching model in comparison to the human body, although it still serves as a useful teaching method (Chapter 2). In addition, our findings confirm that joints of cadavers embalmed using ICL-SP solution faithfully mimics joints of an unembalmed cadaver compared to the other techniques (Chapter 3). Embalming a human body prevents the deterioration in the quality of images and our findings highlight that the influence of the embalming solutions varied with the radiological modality used (Chapter 4). The method developed as part of this thesis enables anatomists and forensic scientists to quantify the decomposition rate of an embalmed human cadaver (Chapter 5). Formalin embalming solution showed the strongest antimicrobial abilities followed by Thiel, Genelyn and finally by ICL-SP (Chapter 6). The overarching viewpoint of this set of studies show that it is inaccurate to state that one embalming technique is ultimately the best. The value of each technique differs based on the requirement of the particular education or research area. Hence we highlight how different embalming techniques may be better suited to certain fields of study.

Adhesives for fixed orthodontic bands

Background: Orthodontic treatment involves using fixed or removable appliances (dental braces) to correct the positions of teeth. It has been shown that the quality of treatment result obtained with fixed appliances is much better than with removable appliances. Fixed appliances are, therefore, favoured by most orthodontists for treatment. The success of a fixed orthodontic appliance depends on the metal attachments (brackets and bands) being attached securely to the teeth so that they do not become loose during treatment. Brackets are usually attached to the front and side teeth, whereas bands (metal rings that go round the teeth) are more commonly used on the back teeth (molars). A number of adhesives are available to attach bands to teeth and it is important to understand which group of adhesives bond most reliably, as well as reducing or preventing dental decay during the treatment period. :Objectives: To evaluate the effectiveness of the adhesives used to attach bands to teeth during fixed appliance treatment, in terms of: (1) how often the bands come off during treatment; and (2) whether they protect the banded teeth against decay during fixed appliance treatment. Search methods: The following electronic databases were searched: Cochrane Oral Health's Trials Register (searched 2 June 2016), Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; 2016, Issue 5) in the Cochrane Library (searched 2 June 2016), MEDLINE Ovid (1946 to 2 June 2016) and EMBASE Ovid (1980 to 2 June 2016). We searched ClinicalTrials.gov and the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform for ongoing trials. No restrictions were placed on the language or date of publication when searching the electronic databases. Selection criteria: Randomised and controlled clinical trials (RCTs and CCTs) (including split-mouth studies) of adhesives used to attach orthodontic bands to molar teeth were selected. Patients with full arch fixed orthodontic appliance(s) who had bands attached to molars were included. Data collection and analysis: All review authors were involved in study selection, validity assessment and data extraction without blinding to the authors, adhesives used or results obtained. All disagreements were resolved by discussion. Main results: Five RCTs and three CCTs were identified as meeting the review's inclusion criteria. All the included trials were of split-mouth design. Four trials compared chemically cured zinc phosphate and chemically cured glass ionomer; three trials compared chemically cured glass ionomer cement with light cured compomer; one trial compared chemically cured glass ionomer with a chemically cured glass phosphonate. Data analysis was often inappropriate within the studies meeting the inclusion criteria. Authors' conclusions: There is insufficient high quality evidence with regard to the most effective adhesive for attaching orthodontic bands to molar teeth. Further RCTs are required.