Image quality assessment and medical physics evaluation of different portable dental X-ray units

Introduction: Recently developed portable dental X-ray units increase the mobility of the forensic odontologists and allow more efficient X-ray work in a disaster field, especially when used in combination with digital sensors. This type of machines might also have potential for application in remote areas, military and humanitarian missions, dental care of patients with mobility limitation, as well as imaging in operating rooms. Objective: To evaluate radiographic image quality acquired by three portable X-ray devices in combination with four image receptors and to evaluate their medical physics parameters. Materials and methods: Images of five samples consisting of four teeth and one formalin-fixed mandible were acquired by one conventional wall-mounted X-ray unit, MinRay (R) 60/70 kVp, used as a clinical standard, and three portable dental X-ray devices: AnyRay (R) 60 kVp, Nomad (R) 60 kVp and Rextar (R) 70 kVp, in combination with a phosphor image plate (PSP), a CCD, or a CMOS sensor. Three observers evaluated images for standard image quality besides forensic diagnostic quality on a 4-point rating scale. Furthermore, all machines underwent tests for occupational as well as patient dosimetry. Results: Statistical analysis showed good quality imaging for all system, with the combination of Nomad (R) and PSP yielding the best score. A significant difference in image quality between the combination of the four X-ray devices and four sensors was established (p < 0.05). For patient safety, the exposure rate was determined and exit dose rates for MinRay (R) at 60 kVp, MinRay (R) at 70 kVp, AnyRay (R), Nomad (R) and Rextar (R) were 3.4 mGy/s, 4.5 mGy/s, 13.5 mGy/s, 3.8 mGy/s and 2.6 mGy/s respectively. The kVp of the AnyRay (R) system was the most stable, with a ripple of 3.7%. Short-term variations in the tube output of all the devices were less than 10%. AnyRay (R) presented higher estimated effective dose than other machines. Occupational dosimetry showed doses at the operator`s hand being lowest with protective shielding (Nomad (R): 0.1 mu Gy). It was also low while using remote control (distance > 1 m: Rextar (R) < 0.2 mu Gy, MinRay (R) < 0.1 mu Gy). Conclusions: The present study demonstrated the feasibility of three portable X-ray systems to be used for specific indications, based on acceptable image quality and sufficient accuracy of the machines and following the standard guidelines for radiation hygiene. (C) 2010 Elsevier Ireland Ltd. All rights reserved.

Caries-preventive Efficacy and Retention of a Resin-modified Glass lonomer Cement and a Resin-based Fissure Sealant: A 3-year Split-mouth Randomised Clinical Trial

Purpose: This prospective clinical trial compared the retention rate and caries-preventive efficacy of two types of sealant modalities over a 3-year period. Materials and Methods: Using a split-mouth randomised design, 1280 sealants were randomly applied on sound permanent second molars of 320 young patients aged between 12 and 16 years. Half of the teeth (n = 640) were sealed with a resin-modified glass ionomer cement (RMGIC) (Vitremer (TM), 3M ESPE) and the other half (n = 640) with a conventional light-cure, resin-based fissure sealant (LCRB) (Fluoroshield (R), Dentsply Caulk). Teeth were evaluated at baseline, 6-, 12-, 18-, 24-, 30- and 36-month intervals with regard to retention and new caries development. Results: On the sealed occlusal surfaces after 3 years, 5.10% of RMGIC and 91.08% of LCRB sealants were totally intact and 6.37% of RMGIC and 7.65% of LCRB sealants were partially intact. New caries lesions were found in 20.06% of RMGIC sealed occlusal surfaces, compared to 8.91% for LCRB sealants. Conclusions: The findings of the present clinical study suggest that RMGIC should be used only as a transitional sealant that can be applied to newly erupting teeth throughout the eruptive process, whereas LCRB sealants are used to successfully prevent occlusal caries lesions once an effective rubber dam can be achieved. It can be concluded that there are differences between the RMGIC and LCRB sealants over a 3-year period in terms of the retention rate and caries-preventive efficacy. RMGIC can serve as a simple and economic sealing solution, however provisional. Due to its poor retention rate, periodic recalls are necessary, even after 6 months, to eventually replace the lost sealant.

Anesthetic efficacy of inferior alveolar nerve block plus buccal infiltration or periodontal ligament injections with articaine in patients with irreversible pulpitis in the mandibular first molar

Objective. We compared the anesthetic efficacy of inferior alveolar nerve block (IANB) plus buccal infiltration (BI) and IANB plus periodontal ligament (PDL) articaine injections in patients with irreversible pulpitis in the mandibular first molar. Study design. Fifty-seven volunteers, patients with irreversible pulpitis in the mandibular first molar admitted to the Department of Stomatology, Second Affiliated Hospital, Sun Yat-Sen University, randomly received conventional IANB, containing 1.7 mL 4% articaine/HCl with 1:100,000 epinephrine, plus either BI or PDL injections containing 0.4 mL articaine/HCl with 1: 100,000 epinephrine. The patients recorded the pain of the injections and endodontic access on a Heft-Parker visual analog scale (VAS). Results. According to the VAS scores, all patients experienced no or mild pain with BI and PDL injections after the application of IANB. Anesthetic success occurred in 81.48% for IANB plus BI (IANB/BI) compared with 83.33% for IANB plus PDL injection (IANB/PDL injection). None of the observed differences between the 2 groups was significant (P > .05). Conclusion. Both injection combinations resulted in high anesthetic success in patients with irreversible pulpitis in the mandibular first molar. (Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod 2009;108:e89-e93)

The efficacy of a highly concentrated fluoride dentifrice on bovine enamel subjected to erosion and abrasion

Background. Researchers have proposed the use of fluoride for the prevention of enamel wear; however, only limited information is available about the impact of fluoridated dentifrices. Because tooth wear is a well-recognized dental problem, the authors conducted an in situ, ex vivo study to assess the efficacy of a highly concentrated fluoride dentifrice on bovine enamel subjected to erosion and abrasion. Methods. The authors conducted a double-blind, crossover in situ study consisting of three phases (seven days each). In each phase, the authors tested one of the dentifrices (5,000 parts per million fluoride [F]; 1,100 ppm F; no F). They performed erosive challenges with the use of cola drink (60 seconds, four times per day) and abrasive challenges via toothbrushing (30 seconds, four times per day). The authors determined the enamel loss via profilometry. Results. The authors tested the data by using two-way analysis of variance (P <.05). For the erosion-plus-abrasion condition, the study results showed that enamel wear was significantly higher than that with erosion alone. The findings showed no significant differences between the dentifrices regarding enamel wear. Conclusions. Within the in situ, ex vivo conditions of this study, the authors concluded that the highly concentrated fluoride dentifrice did not have a protective effect on enamel against erosion and erosion plus toothbrushing abrasion. Clinical Implications. Patients at risk of developing enamel erosion should benefit from preventive measures other than fluoride dentifrice, because even a highly concentrated fluoride dentifrice does not appear to prevent enamel erosion.

A comparison of the clinical anesthetic efficacy of 4% articaine and 0.5% bupivacaine (both with 1 : 200,000 epinephrine) for lower third molar removal

Objective: This study compared the clinical efficacy of 4% articaine (A200) and 0.5% bupivacaine (B200), both with 1: 200,000 epinephrine, for lower third molar removal. Study design: Fifty patients underwent removal of symmetrically positioned lower third molars, in 2 separate appointments, under local anesthesia either with A200 or B200, in a double-blind, randomized, and crossover manner. Time to onset, duration of postoperative analgesia, duration of anesthetic action on soft tissues, intraoperative bleeding, and hemodynamic parameters were evaluated. Results: A statistically significant difference between the time to onset of A200 (1.66 +/- 0.13 minutes) and B200 (2.51 +/- 0.21 minutes) was found (P < .05). There was no statistically significant difference in the duration of analgesia, whether the patient was subjected to osteotomy or not, regardless of the local anesthetic used (3 to 4 hours; P < .05). However, when patients received B200 they experienced a statistically significant longer period of anesthesia on the soft tissues as compared with when they had received A200 (around 5 hours and 4 hours, respectively, P < .05). The surgeon`s rating of intraoperative bleeding was considered very close to minimal for both anesthetics. In the surgeries with osteotomy, the comparison between A200 and B200 showed statistically significant differences in the diastolic (64 mm Hg and 68 mm Hg, respectively, P = .001) and mean arterial pressure (86 mm Hg and 89 mm Hg, respectively, P = .031) when data from all the surgical phases were pooled. Additionally, the mouth opening at the suture removal was statistically different for A200 and B200 solutions (91.90% +/- 3.00% and 88.57% +/- 2.38% of the preoperative measure, respectively) when surgeries required bone removal (P < .05). Conclusions: In comparison with 0.5% bupivacaine, 4% articaine (both with 1: 200,000 epinephrine) provided a shorter time to onset and comparable hemostasis and postoperative pain control with a shorter duration of soft tissue anesthesia in lower third molar removal.