RESUMO
Introduction: Traditionally, cephalometric analysis has beencarried out using a hand-tracing manual method. In imaging,picture archiving and communication systems (PACS) areinformation management systems used for the capture andmeasurement of medical and dental radiographs. Althoughnot customized for lateral cephalometry, this study aimed toevaluate the cephalometric measurements made on screenwith Nemoceph NX 2006 software using PACS comparedwith the conventional hand-tracing method.Material and methods: All the subjects were positioned inthe cephalostat with the sagittal plane at right angles to thepath of the X-rays and to the Frankfort plane parallel to thefloor. That digital cephalogram was sent to printer via ImageDent software to print the hard copy through Laser printer andit is also transferred to the personal computer of Department ofOrthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopaedics by PACS (picturearchiving and communication systems) method.Results: In this study the total time taken in manual tracing is30 min, while digital tracing takes around 35 min. So, Timetaken in manual tracing is less than digital tracing that might bebecause only few parameters has been included in this study.The results showed no statistically significant differences inany of the assessed measurements (p> 0.05).Conclusion: Conventional and computerized methodsshowed consistency in all angular and linear measurements.The computer program Nemotech dental studio NX 2006 canbe used reliably as an aid in diagnosing, planning, monitoringand evaluating orthodontic treatment both in clinical andresearch settings.
RESUMO
Background: Endodontically treated teeth are widely considered to be more susceptible to fracture than vital teeth. To reinforce the instrumented teeth against fracture; sealers are used in conjugation with a core filling material. Methods: The 120 prepared teeth were randomly divided into four experimental groups and two control group of 20 teeth each. One control group of 20 teeth where access opened and left unistrumented and unobturated. Group- I: Teeth obturated with gutta percha and epoxy resin based sealer. Group- II: Teeth obturated with polymer based core and methacrylate based Sealer. Group- III: Teeth obturated with gutta percha and calcium silicate based sealer. Group IV: Teeth obturated with gutta percha and zinc oxide eugenol based sealer. Group V: Teeth instrumented and obturated with gutta percha without use of sealer (Positive control). Group VI – Teeth with no instrumentation or obturation (Negative control). Results: The mean fracture resistance values (in N) are Group I i.e. Epoxy resin root canal sealer – 286.06 N, Group II i.e. Methacrylate resin root canal sealer - 328.77N, Group III i.e. Calcium silicate based root canal sealer - 265.05N, Group IV i.e. Zinc oxide eugenol based root canal sealer - 269.85N, Group V i.e. Positive control (Obturated without root canal sealer) - 258.91N, Group VI i.e. Negative control (No instrumentation and obturation) - 285.41N. Conclusion: Among the root canal sealers; resin based root canal sealers showed higher resistance to fracture than non adhesive sealers