Comparison of space analysis performed on plaster vs. digital dental casts applying Tanaka and Johnston's equation

OBJETIVO: comparar medidas de tamanhos dentários, suas reprodutibilidades e a aplicação da equação de regressão de Tanaka e Johnston na predição do tamanho dos caninos e pré-molares em modelos de gesso e digital. MÉTODOS: trinta modelos de gesso foram escaneados para obtenção dos modelos digitais. As medidas do comprimento mesiodistal dos dentes foram obtidas com paquímetro digital nos modelos de gesso e nos modelos digitais utilizando o software O3d (Widialabs). A somatória do tamanho dos incisivos inferiores foi utilizada para obter os valores de predição do tamanho dos pré-molares e caninos utilizando equação de regressão, e esses valores foram comparados ao tamanho real dos dentes. Os dados foram analisados estatisticamente, aplicando-se aos resultados o teste de correlação de Pearson, a fórmula de Dahlberg, o teste t pareado e a análise de variância (p < 0,05). RESULTADOS: excelente concordância intraexaminador foi observada nas medidas realizadas em ambos os modelos. O erro aleatório não esteve presente nas medidas obtidas com paquímetro, e o erro sistemático foi mais frequente no modelo digital. A previsão de espaço obtida pela aplicação da equação de regressão foi maior que a somatória dos pré-molares e caninos presentes nos modelos de gesso e nos modelos digitais. CONCLUSÃO: apesar da boa reprodutibilidade das medidas realizadas em ambos os modelos, a maioria das medidas dos modelos digitais foram superiores às do modelos de gesso. O espaço previsto foi superestimado em ambos os modelos e significativamente maior nos modelos digitais.

Is The amphibian tree of life really fatally flawed?

Wiens (2007, Q. Rev. Biol. 82, 55-56) recently published a severe critique of Frost et al.'s (2006, Bull. Am. Mus. Nat. Hist. 297, 1-370) monographic study of amphibian systematics, concluding that it is a disaster and recommending that readers simply ignore this study. Beyond the hyperbole, Wiens raised four general objections that he regarded as fatal flaws: (1) the sampling design was insufficient for the generic changes made and taxonomic changes were made without including all type species; (2) the nuclear gene most commonly used in amphibian phylogenetics, RAG-1, was not included, nor were the morphological characters that had justified the older taxonomy; (3) the analytical method employed is questionable because equally weighted parsimony assumes that all characters are evolving at equal rates; and (4) the results were at times clearly erroneous, as evidenced by the inferred non-monophyly of marsupial frogs. In this paper we respond to these criticisms. In brief: (1) the study of Frost et al. did not exist in a vacuum and we discussed our evidence and evidence previously obtained by others that documented the non-monophyletic taxa that we corrected. Beyond that, we agree that all type species should ideally be included, but inclusion of all potentially relevant type species is not feasible in a study of the magnitude of Frost et al. and we contend that this should not prevent progress in the formulation of phylogenetic hypotheses or their application outside of systematics. (2) Rhodopsin, a gene included by Frost et al. is the nuclear gene that is most commonly used in amphibian systematics, not RAG-1. Regardless, ignoring a study because of the absence of a single locus strikes us as unsound practice. With respect to previously hypothesized morphological synapomorphies, Frost et al. provided a lengthy review of the published evidence for all groups, and this was used to inform taxonomic decisions. We noted that confirming and reconciling all morphological transformation series published among previous studies needed to be done, and we included evidence from the only published data set at that time to explicitly code morphological characters (including a number of traditionally applied synapomorphies from adult morphology) across the bulk of the diversity of amphibians (Haas, 2003, Cladistics 19, 23-90). Moreover, the phylogenetic results of the Frost et al. study were largely consistent with previous morphological and molecular studies and where they differed, this was discussed with reference to the weight of evidence. (3) The claim that equally weighted parsimony assumes that all characters are evolving at equal rates has been shown to be false in both analytical and simulation studies. (4) The claimed strong support for marsupial frog monophyly is questionable. Several studies have also found marsupial frogs to be non-monophyletic. Wiens et al. (2005, Syst. Biol. 54, 719-748) recovered marsupial frogs as monophyletic, but that result was strongly supported only by Bayesian clade confidence values (which are known to overestimate support) and bootstrap support in his parsimony analysis was < 50%. Further, in a more recent parsimony analysis of an expanded data set that included RAG-1 and the three traditional morphological synapomorphies of marsupial frogs, Wiens et al. (2006, Am. Nat. 168, 579-596) also found them to be non-monophyletic.Although we attempted to apply the rule of monophyly to the naming of taxonomic groups, our phylogenetic results are largely consistent with conventional views even if not wth the taxonomy current at the time of our writing. Most of our taxonomic changes addressed examples of non-monophyly that had previously been known or suspected (e.g., the non-monophyly of traditional Hyperoliidae, Microhylidae, Hemiphractinae, Leptodactylidae, Phrynobatrachus, Ranidae, Rana, Bufo; and the placement of Brachycephalus within Eleutherodactylus, and Lineatriton within Pseudoeurycea), and it is troubling that Wiens and others, as evidenced by recent publications, continue to perpetuate recognition of non-monophyletic taxonomic groups that so profoundly misrepresent what is known about amphibian phylogeny. (C) The Willi Hennig Society 2007.

Search for narrow resonances in dilepton mass spectra in pp collisions at root s=7 TeV CMS Collaboration

Conselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Científico e Tecnológico (CNPq)

Search for charge-asymmetric production of W ' bosons in t(t)over-bar + jet events from pp collisions at root s=7 TeV

Conselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Científico e Tecnológico (CNPq)

Study of W boson production in PbPb and pp collisions at root s(NN)=2.76 TeV

Conselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Científico e Tecnológico (CNPq)

Search for resonances in the dijet mass spectrum from 7 TeV pp collisions at CMS

Conselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Científico e Tecnológico (CNPq)

Measurement of the charge asymmetry in top-quark pair production in proton-proton collisions at root s=7 TeV

Conselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Científico e Tecnológico (CNPq)

Measurement of the top-quark mass in t(t)over-bar events with dilepton final states in pp collisions at root s=7 TeV

Conselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Científico e Tecnológico (CNPq)

Search for high-mass resonances decaying into tau-lepton pairs in pp collisions at root s=7 TeV

Conselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Científico e Tecnológico (CNPq)

Measurement of the Lambda(b) cross section and the (Lambda)over-bar(b) to Lambda(b) ratio with J/psi Lambda decays in pp collisions at root s=7 TeV CMS Collaboration

Conselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Científico e Tecnológico (CNPq)

Search for three-jet resonances in pp collisions at root s=7 TeV

Conselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Científico e Tecnológico (CNPq)

Measurement of isolated photon production in pp and PbPb collisions at root s(NN)=2.76 TeV

Conselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Científico e Tecnológico (CNPq)

Search for the standard model Higgs boson produced in association with W and Z bosons in pp collisions at root s=7 TeV

Conselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Científico e Tecnológico (CNPq)

Inclusive and differential measurements of the t(t)over-bar charge asymmetry in proton-proton collisions root s=7 TeV

Conselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Científico e Tecnológico (CNPq)

Combination of Tevatron Searches for the Standard Model Higgs Boson in the W+W- Decay Mode

Conselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Científico e Tecnológico (CNPq)