Reproducibility and accuracy of linear measurements on dental models derived from cone-beam computed tomography compared with digital dental casts.

INTRODUCTION The aim of this study was to determine the reproducibility and accuracy of linear measurements on 2 types of dental models derived from cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) scans: CBCT images, and Anatomodels (InVivoDental, San Jose, Calif); these were compared with digital models generated from dental impressions (Digimodels; Orthoproof, Nieuwegein, The Netherlands). The Digimodels were used as the reference standard. METHODS The 3 types of digital models were made from 10 subjects. Four examiners repeated 37 linear tooth and arch measurements 10 times. Paired t tests and the intraclass correlation coefficient were performed to determine the reproducibility and accuracy of the measurements. RESULTS The CBCT images showed significantly smaller intraclass correlation coefficient values and larger duplicate measurement errors compared with the corresponding values for Digimodels and Anatomodels. The average difference between measurements on CBCT images and Digimodels ranged from -0.4 to 1.65 mm, with limits of agreement values up to 1.3 mm for crown-width measurements. The average difference between Anatomodels and Digimodels ranged from -0.42 to 0.84 mm with limits of agreement values up to 1.65 mm. CONCLUSIONS Statistically significant differences between measurements on Digimodels and Anatomodels, and between Digimodels and CBCT images, were found. Although the mean differences might be clinically acceptable, the random errors were relatively large compared with corresponding measurements reported in the literature for both Anatomodels and CBCT images, and might be clinically important. Therefore, with the CBCT settings used in this study, measurements made directly on CBCT images and Anatomodels are not as accurate as measurements on Digimodels.

Impact of environmental estrogens on Yfish considering the diversity of estrogen signaling.

Research on endocrine disruption in fish has been dominated by studies on estrogen-active compounds which act as mimics of the natural estrogen, 17β-estradiol (E2), and generally exert their biological actions by binding to and activation of estrogen receptors (ERs). Estrogens play central roles in reproductive physiology and regulate (female) sexual differentiation. In line with this, most adverse effects reported for fish exposed to environmental estrogens relate to sexual differentiation and reproduction. E2, however, utilizes a variety of signaling mechanisms, has multifaceted functions and targets, and therefore the toxicological and ecological effects of environmental estrogens in fish will extend beyond those associated with the reproduction. This review first describes the diversity of estrogen receptor signaling in fish, including both genomic and non-genomic mechanisms, and receptor crosstalk. It then considers the range of non-reproductive physiological processes in fish that are known to be responsive to estrogens, including sensory systems, the brain, the immune system, growth, specifically through the growth hormone/insulin-like growth factor system, and osmoregulation. The diversity in estrogen responses between fish species is then addressed, framed within evolutionary and ecological contexts, and we make assessments on their relevance for toxicological sensitivity as well as ecological vulnerability. The diversity of estrogen actions raises questions whether current risk assessment strategies, which focus on reproductive endpoints, and a few model fish species only, are protective of the wider potential health effects of estrogens. Available - although limited - evidence nevertheless suggests that quantitative environmental threshold concentrations for environmental protection derived from reproductive tests with model fish species are protective for non-reproductive effects as well. The diversity of actions of estrogens across divergent physiological systems, however, may lead to and underestimation of impacts on fish populations as their effects are generally considered on one functional process only and this may underrepresent the impact on the different physiological processes collectively.