OBJECTIVE: The systematic review and meta-analysis aims to gather evidence regarding the effectiveness of EALs for WL determination when compared to different imaging techniques along with postoperative pain associated with WL determination, the number of radiographs taken during the procedure, the time taken, and the adverse effects.
METHODS: For the review, clinical studies with cross-over and parallel-arm randomized controlled trials (RCTs) were searched in seven electronic databases, followed by cross-referencing of the selected studies and related research synthesis. Risk of bias (RoB) assessment was carried out with Cochrane's RoB tool and a random-effects model was used. The meta-analysis was performed with the RevMan software 5.4.1.
RESULTS: Eleven eligible RCTs were incorporated into the review and eight RCTs into the meta-analysis, of which five had high RoB and the remaining six had unclear RoB. Following meta-analysis, no significant difference in postoperative pain was found among the EAL and radiograph groups (SMD 0.00, CI .29 to .28, 354 participants; P value = 0.98). Radiograph group showed better WL accuracy (SMD 0.55, CI .11 to .99, 254 participants; P value = 0.02), while the EAL group had 10% better WL adequacy (RR 1.10, CI 1.03-1.18, 573 participants; P value = 0.006).
CONCLUSION: We found very low-certainty evidence to support the efficacy of different types of EAL compared to radiography for the outcomes tested. We were unable to reach any conclusions about the superiority of any type of EAL. Well-planned RCTs need to be conducted by standardizing the outcomes and outcome measurement methods.
METHODS: Hundred fifty pre-orthodontic study casts comprised of 52 Malay, 54 Chinese, and 44 Indian patients were selected. Digital calipers (Fowler Pro-Max) linked to Hamilton Tooth Arch Software were used to measure the tooth width and ratios. Statistical analysis was carried out to test for gender differences (independent t-test), to identify the effects of malocclusion and ethnic groups (Two-way ANOVA), and to compare the means of the current study with Bolton's standards (one sample t-test).
RESULTS: This study showed that there was no significant difference between the genders of the sample of each ethnicity. There was no correlation found between ethnic groups and malocclusion classes. There was a significant difference when comparing Bolton values with the Malay sample for both ratios. It was found that more Malay subjects presented with maxillary excess contrary to Chinese and Indians who presented more maxillary deficiency for the anterior and overall ratio.
CONCLUSION: There was a significant difference found between the TSD of the three major ethnicities in Malaysia. The Bolton standards can be applied to Malaysian Chinese and Indians but not to Malays orthodontic populations for both anterior and overall ratios. Subsequently, a specific standard should be used for the Malays orthodontic population. It was found that more Malay subjects presented with maxillary excess contrary to Chinese and Indians who presented more maxillary deficiency for the anterior and overall ratio.
Aim: The aim of this study is to analyze predominant types of lip prints (cheiloscopy), accuracy of mandibular canine index (MCI) (odontometric), and facial index in the study population and to identify whether any correlation among the above parameters could help forensic dentistry in solving crimes.
Materials and Methods: A pilot study was conducted in 100 individuals, 50 males and 50 females aged between 20 and 25 years. For each individual, the lip prints, MCI, and facial index measurements were recorded on the same day analyzed by two observers. All the analysis was done using SPSS version 14 assessed using t-test and Chi-square test.
Results: Type II pattern of lip prints is observed as common pattern among male and female. There is no significant difference in Odontometric analysis. The mean value of facial index analysis in both genders shows highly significant.
Conclusion: A large-scale study is required in order to validate our results to arrive at definitive results and value.
METHODS: Fifteen intact, non-carious single-rooted teeth were decoronated at the cementoenamel junction. Visually, working length was determined by using a #15 K-file under stereomicroscope (×20). The effect of cellular phones on electronic working length (EWL) was determined under 2 experimental settings: (1) in a closed room with poor signal strength and (2) in a polyclinic set up with good signal strength and 5 conditions: (1) electronically, without cellular phone in room; (2) electronically, with cellular phone in physical contact with EAL; (3) electronically, with mobile phone in physical contact with EAL and in calling mode for a period of 25 seconds; (4) electronically, mobile phone placed at a distance of 40 cm from the EAL; and (5) electronically, mobile phone placed at a distance of 40 cm and in calling mode for a period of 25 seconds. The EWL was measured 3 times per tooth under each condition. Stability of the readings was scored from 1 to 3: (1) good stability, (2) stable reading after 1 attempt, and (3) stable reading after 2 attempts. The data were compared by using analysis of variance.
RESULTS: The EWL measurements were not influenced by the presence of cellular phone and could be determined under all experimental conditions.
CONCLUSIONS: Within the limitations of this study, it can be concluded that mobile phones do not interfere with the EWL determination.
METHODS: Fifty digital models were scanned from the same plaster models. Arch and tooth size measurements were made by 2 operators, twice. Calibration was done on 10 sets of models and checked using the Pearson correlation coefficient. Data were analyzed by error variances, repeatability coefficient, repeated-measures analysis of variance, and Bland-Altman plots.
RESULTS: Error variances ranged between 0.001 and 0.044 mm for the digital caliper method, and between 0.002 and 0.054 mm for the 3D software method. Repeated-measures analysis of variance showed small but statistically significant differences (P <0.05) between the repeated measurements in the arch and buccolingual planes (0.011 and 0.008 mm, respectively). There were no statistically significant differences between methods and between operators. Bland-Altman plots showed that the mean biases were close to zero, and the 95% limits of agreement were within ±0.50 mm. Repeatability coefficients for all measurements were similar.
CONCLUSIONS: Measurements made on models scanned by the 3D structured-light scanner were in good agreement with those made on conventional plaster models and were, therefore, clinically acceptable.