BACKGROUND: Numerous methods of age estimation have been proposed. The Demirjian method is the most frequently used, which was first applied in a French Canadian population in 1973. The Willems method is a modification of the above and was applied in a Belgian population in 2002.
OBJECTIVES: The objectives of this study were to test the applicability of the two methods, namely Demirjian and Willems, for age estimation in a Malay population, and to find the correlation between body mass index and the difference between the dental age and the chronological age.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: A cross-sectional study involving 214 boys and 214 girls, selected by a simple stratified random sampling method was carried out. The orthopantomograph was used to score the seven left mandibular teeth, and the calculated maturity score was used to obtain the Demirjian dental age. Willems dental age was estimated using the tables proposed in the Willems method. Results. The Demirjian method overestimated the age by 0.75 and 0.61 years, while the Willems method overestimated the age by 0.55 and 0.41 years among boys and girls, respectively. In boys, the body mass index was significantly correlated to the difference in age using the Willems method.
CONCLUSION: Further modification of either method is indicated for dental age estimation among the Malay population.
The aim of this study is to evaluate the satisfaction of patients with posterior implants in relation to the clinical success criteria and surface electromyography (sEMG) findings of the masseter and temporalis muscles. Total 42 subjects were investigated. Twenty one subjects with posterior dental implants were interviewed using a questionnaire and the clinical success criteria were determined based on The International Congress of Oral Implantologists. The myofunction of the masticatory muscles were assessed using sEMG (21 subjects) and compared to the control group of subjects without implants (21 subjects). Out of 21 subjects, all were satisfied with the aesthetics of their implant. Twenty of them (95.2%) were satisfied with its function and stability. As for clinical criteria, 100% (50) of the implants were successful with no pain, mobility or exudates. sEMG findings showed that patients have significantly lower (p<0.01) basal or resting median power frequency but with muscle burst. During chewing, control subjects showed faster chewing action. There was no difference in reaction and recovery time of clenching for both groups. In conclusion, the satisfaction of implant patients was high, and which was in relation to the successful clinical success criteria and sEMG findings.
Intermaxillary (IMF) screws feature several advantages over other devices used for intermaxillary fixation, but using cone beam computed tomography (CBCT) scans to determine the safe and danger zones to place these devices for all patients can be expensive. This study aimed to determine the optimal interradicular and buccopalatal/buccolingual spaces for IMF screw placement in the maxilla and mandible. The CBCT volumetric data of 193 patients was used to generate transaxial slices between the second molar on the right to the second molar on the left in both arches. The mean interradicular and buccopalatal/buccolingual distances and standard deviation values were obtained at heights of 2, 5, 8 and 11 mm from the alveolar bone crest. An IMF screw with a diameter of 1.0 mm and length of 7 mm can be placed distal to the canines (2 - 11 mm from the alveolar crest) and less than 8 mm between the molars in the maxilla. In the mandible, the safest position is distal to the first premolar (more than 5 mm) and distal to the second premolar (more than 2 mm). There was a significant difference (p<0.05) between the right and left quadrants. The colour coding 3D template showed the safe and danger zones based on the mesiodistal, buccopalatal and buccolingual distances in the maxilla and mandible.The safest sites for IMF screw insertion in the maxilla were between the canines and first premolars and between the first and second molars. In the mandible, the safest sites were between the first and second premolars and between the second premolar and first molar. However, the IMF screw should not exceed 1.0 mm in diameter and 7 mm in length.