Objectives The primary aim of this two-arm parallel two-centre randomized controlled trial was to compare computer-aided design and computer-aided manufacturing (CAD/CAM) versus conventional multistranded fixed retainers (FRs) in terms of stability over 6 months. Secondary outcomes were failure rates and patient satisfaction. Methods Patients were randomized to CAD/CAM or conventional FRs in both arches, in 1:1 ratio and blocks of four. Allocation concealment was secured by using sequentially numbered envelopes. Patients were blinded. Retainers were bonded at the end of orthodontic treatment (T0), and patients were recalled after 1 (T1), 3 (T3), and 6 (T6) months. First-time retainer failures were recorded and digital impressions were taken. Arch widths and lengths, as well as Little’s Irregularity Index (LII), were measured. Additionally, patients answered satisfaction questionnaires. Linear mixed models were applied for measurements and patient satisfaction. Survival analyses were estimated with Kaplan-Meier curves, along with Cox-regression modelling. Results One hundred and eighty-one patients were randomized (98 in Centre 1, and 83 in Centre 2): Ninety in the CAD/CAM group and 91 in the conventional group. Three subjects dropped out at baseline, as they did not attend any of the follow-up appointments.168 patients attended the T6 visit. There were no significant differences in arch dimensions between T0 and T6, whilst the LII was different only in the CAD/CAM group (mean difference: 0.2 mm; 95% confidence interval: 0.1 to 0.4; P < 0.001). Within 6 months, 39 upper retainers (19 out of 88 CAD/CAM and 20 out of 90 conventional retainers) and 52 lower retainers failed (26 out of 88 CAD/CAM and 26 out of 90 conventional retainers), with no significant difference between the survival of both types of retainers (hazard ratios conventional to CAD/CAM: upper arch: 0.99 [P =0.99], lower arch: 0.93 [P = 0.80]). There were no significant changes in patient satisfaction between the groups. No harms were observed. Conclusions There were no clinically significant differences in LII, arch widths and lengths between CAD/CAM and conventional retainers after 6 months. There was no difference in failures and in patient satisfaction between both types of FRs. Registration ClinicalTrials.gov NCT04389879.
Background The Oral Health Impact Profile-14 (OHIP-14) questionnaire assesses quality of life related to people’s perception of oral disorders on their well-being. However, a translated and validated Danish version of OHIP-14 is not yet available. The purpose of this pilot study was to translate and cross-culturally adapt the English version of the OHIP-14 into Danish (OHIP-14-DK). In addition, to assess its content and face validity, internal consistency and test-retest reliability. Methods The English version of OHIP-14 was translated into Danish following a standard protocol of cross-cultural adaptation. Stages I-IV: translation phase to generate a pre-final version “OHIP-14-DK”. Stage V: pre-testing phase. A random sample of 22 orthodontic patients (mean age 24.7 years, SD ±14.8; 14 females, 8 males) were selected at the Section of Orthodontics, Aarhus University, Denmark. All patients self-completed the OHIP-14-DK and were then interviewed to assess its content and face validity. Internal consistency was assessed with Cronbach’s alpha coefficients. All patients completed the same questionnaire again at a one-week interval. Test-retest reliability was assessed using Spearman’s correlation coefficient and intra-class correlation coefficient (ICC). Results The initial and back translations were very similar: the OHIP-14-DK proved to have a good level of equivalence with no translation errors or deviations. Furthermore, the OHIP-14-DK seemed well-adapted to Danish culture and was understood by individuals down to 12 years of age. Pre-testing demonstrated good face and content validity; interviews had a response rate of 100% and confirmed that each item was understandable without inducing reluctance or hesitation. Thus, responses were related to their corresponding item. Therefore, no final adjustments were required for the pre-tested version. Cronbach’s alpha for the OHIP-14-DK subscales fell in the 0.75–0.84 range, indicating an adequate-to-good internal consistency. Spearman’s correlation coefficient for the OHIP-14-DK total score was 0.77. The ICC for the OHIP-14-DK total score was 0.91. Conclusions The OHIP-14-DK seems well adapted to Danish culture, proved to be face and content valid and also showed good internal consistency and excellent reliability. However, its psychometric properties still need to be tested. Study registration Not applicable
Hidden caries is a dentinal lesion beneath the dentinoenamel junction, visible on radiographs. A single report described this lesion in primary dentition. This case report describes a case of hidden caries in a mandibular second primary molar, misdiagnosed as malignant swelling. A 3-year-old white girl was referred to the Department of Pediatric Dentistry with a chief complaint of pain and extraoral swelling on the right side of the mandible for the last 3 months. She was earlier referred to the surgical department for biopsy of the lesion. Radiographic and computed tomography scan examination showed a periapical lesion with buccal plate resorption and radiolucency beneath the enamel on the mesial part of tooth 85. The tooth was extracted, and follow-up of 2 years showed normal development of tooth 45. The main problem is early detection and treatment, since the outer surface of enamel may appear intact on tactile examination.How to cite this articleGera A, Zilberman U. Diagnosis and Management of Hidden Caries in a Primary Molar Tooth. Int J Clin Pediatr Dent 2017;10(1):99-102.
During the last 12 months, how often has the following occurred?0= Never, 1= Hardly ever, 2= occasionally, 3=fairly often, 4= very often 1 Functional limitation 1. Have you had trouble pronouncing any words because of problems with your teeth, mouth or dentures? 2. Have you felt that your sense of taste has worsened because of problems with your teeth, mouth or dentures? 2 Physical pain 3. Have you had painful aching in your mouth? 4. Have you found it uncomfortable to eat any foods because of problems with your teeth, mouth or dentures? 3 Psychological discomfort 5. Have you been self-conscious of your teeth, mouth or dentures? 6. Have you felt tense because of problems with your teeth, mouth or dentures? 4 Physical disability 7. Has your diet been unsatisfactory because of problems with your teeth, mouth or dentures? 8. Have you had to interrupt meals because of problems with your teeth, mouth or dentures? 5 Psychological disability 9. Have you found it difficult to relax because of problems with your teeth, mouth or dentures? 10. Have you been a bit embarrassed because of problems with your teeth, mouth or dentures? 6 Social disability 11. Have you been a bit irritable with other people because of problems with your teeth, mouth or dentures? 12. Have you had difficulty doing your usual jobs because of problems with your teeth, mouth or dentures? 7 Handicap 13. Have you felt that life in general was less satisfying because of problems with your teeth, mouth or dentures? 14. Have you been totally unable to function because of problems with your teeth, mouth or dentures?
The aim of this study was to assess the validity and reproducibility of digital scoring of the Peer Assessment Rating (PAR) index and its components using a software, compared with conventional manual scoring on printed model equivalents. The PAR index was scored on 15 cases at pre- and post-treatment stages by two operators using two methods: first, digitally, on direct digital models using Ortho Analyzer software; and second, manually, on printed model equivalents using a digital caliper. All measurements were repeated at a one-week interval. Paired sample t-tests were used to compare PAR scores and its components between both methods and raters. Intra-class correlation coefficients (ICC) were used to compute intra- and inter-rater reproducibility. The error of the method was calculated. The agreement between both methods was analyzed using Bland-Altman plots. There were no significant differences in the mean PAR scores between both methods and both raters. ICC for intra- and inter-rater reproducibility was excellent (≥0.95). All error-of-the-method values were smaller than the associated minimum standard deviation. Bland-Altman plots confirmed the validity of the measurements. PAR scoring on digital models showed excellent validity and reproducibility compared with manual scoring on printed model equivalents by means of a digital caliper.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.