Low-cost Process monitoring for polymer extrusion

Polymer extrusion is regarded as an energy-intensive production process, and the real-time monitoring of both energy consumption and melt quality has become necessary to meet new carbon regulations and survive in the highly competitive plastics market. The use of a power meter is a simple and easy way to monitor energy, but the cost can sometimes be high. On the other hand, viscosity is regarded as one of the key indicators of melt quality in the polymer extrusion process. Unfortunately, viscosity cannot be measured directly using current sensory technology. The employment of on-line, in-line or off-line rheometers is sometimes useful, but these instruments either involve signal delay or cause flow restrictions to the extrusion process, which is obviously not suitable for real-time monitoring and control in practice. In this paper, simple and accurate real-time energy monitoring methods are developed. This is achieved by looking inside the controller, and using control variables to calculate the power consumption. For viscosity monitoring, a ‘soft-sensor’ approach based on an RBF neural network model is developed. The model is obtained through a two-stage selection and differential evolution, enabling compact and accurate solutions for viscosity monitoring. The proposed monitoring methods were tested and validated on a Killion KTS-100 extruder, and the experimental results show high accuracy compared with traditional monitoring approaches.

The lifetime direct cost of periodontal treatment:A case study from a norwegian specialist practice

Background: Successful periodontal treatment requires a commitment to regular lifelong maintenance and may be perceived by patients to be costly. This study calculates the total lifetime cost of periodontal treatment in the setting of a specialist periodontal practice and investigates the cost implications of choosing not to proceed with such treatment. Methods: Data from patients treated in a specialist practice in Norway were used to calculate the total lifetime cost of periodontal treatment that included baseline periodontal treatment, regular maintenance, retreatment, and replacing teeth lost during maintenance. Incremental costs for alternative strategies based on opting to forego periodontal treatment or maintenance and to replace any teeth lost with either bridgework or implants were calculated. Results: Patients who completed baseline periodontal treatment but did not have any additional maintenance or retreatment could replace only three teeth with bridgework or two teeth with implants before the cost of replacing additional teeth would exceed the cost of lifetime periodontal treatment. Patients who did not have any periodontal treatment could replace ≤4 teeth with bridgework or implants before a replacement strategy became more expensive. Conclusions: Within the limits of the assumptions made, periodontal treatment in a Norwegian specialist periodontal practice is cost-effective when compared to an approach that relies on opting to replace teeth lost as a result of progressive periodontitis with fixed restorations. In particular, patients who have initial comprehensive periodontal treatment but do not subsequently comply with maintenance could, on average, replace ≤3 teeth with bridgework or two teeth with implants before this approach would exceed the direct cost of lifetime periodontal treatment in the setting of the specialist practice studied. © 2012 American Academy of Periodontology.

Incorporating Severity and Risk as Factors to the Fardal Cost-Effectiveness Model to Create a Cost-Benefit Model for Periodontal Treatment

Background: A previously described economic model was based on average values for patients diagnosed with chronic periodontitis (CP). However, tooth loss varies among treated patients and factors for tooth loss include CP severity and risk. The model was refined to incorporate CP severity and risk to determine the cost of treating a specific level of CP severity and risk that is associated with the benefit of tooth preservation.

Methods: A population that received and another that did not receive periodontal treatment were used to determine treatment costs and tooth loss. The number of teeth preserved was the difference of the number of teeth lost between the two populations. The cost of periodontal treatment was divided by the number of teeth preserved for combinations of CP severity and risk.

Results: The cost of periodontal treatment divided by the number of teeth preserved ranged from (US) $ 1,405 to $ 4,895 for high or moderate risk combined with any severity of CP and was more than $ 8,639 for low risk combined with mild CP. The cost of a three-unit bridge was $ 3,416, and the cost of a single-tooth replacement was $ 4,787.

Conclusion: Periodontal treatment could be justified on the sole basis of tooth preservation when CP risk is moderate or high regardless of disease severity.