The use of objective digital matching to achieve an esthetic composite restoration.

OBJECTIVE: To investigate the ability to match composite restorations to teeth using digital imaging and CIE L*a*b* color differences. METHODS: Ten extracted human central incisors were used. Eleven discs of composite of differing shades were produced and mounted on white cardboard to create a customized shade guide (CSG). The CSG was photographed next to each of the ten teeth in a phantom head using a digital SLR camera. The images were analyzed, and color differences (deltaE) between the teeth and the shade discs were calculated using CIE L*a*b* values. Three cavities were then drilled into the labial surface of each tooth. Composite shades with the lowest three deltaE values were then used to restore the cavities. Ten observers evaluated the teeth under a standard D65 light source and recorded the best match. RESULTS: The majority of the observers selected the lowest deltaE in six out of the 10 teeth, and in a further two out of 10 teeth the second lowest deltaE was chosen. CONCLUSION: The lowest deltaE selected by objective color matching was agreed as the best match by observers. The high correlation between digital and visual color matching confirms the ability of digital camera and image analysis software to detect color differences.

The use of general anaesthesia for the extraction of children's teeth. Results from two UK dental hospitals.

AIM: To study the reasons forgiving children a general anaesthetic (GA) for the extraction of teeth, in two different paediatric dentistry centres and to compare them with draft guidelines disseminated for discussion by the British Society of Paediatric Dentistry (BSPD). METHODS: Data were collected on children who required GA extractions over a two month period (1st may to 30th June 2004) at the Paediatric Dental Units of Liverpool University Dental Hospital (LUDH) and the University Dental Hospital of Manchester (UDHM). The information collected included date of birth, gender, date of referral, date of assessment and date of GA. The reason for the GA was noted in terms of the proposed BSPD guidelines for short GA. RESULTS: A total of 264 and 268 children required extractions under GA at LUDH and UDHM respectively. At LUDH the main reason in 189 (72%) children was severe pulpitis requiring immediate relief of pain where a child does not have the intellectual maturity to cope with treatment under local analgesia (LA). This was followed by failed extractions under LA in 53 (20%) children. This reason is not listed under the proposed BSPD guidelines. At UDHM the main reason for GA in 114 (42%) children was symptomatic teeth causing pain in more than two quadrants (or in two quadrants necessitating the use of bilateral inferior dental blocks). CONCLUSIONS: There were differences in the clinical rationale for GA between children attending the two centres. Further information is needed to refine the proposed guidelines on the use of GA for dental extractions in paediatric dentistry. The guidelines need to be flexible and updated to reflect changes in practice and service provision.

The frequency of repeat general anaesthesia for teeth extractions in children.

AIM: The purpose of this study was to determine the frequency of repeat extractions under general anaesthesia (GA) in children. METHODS: The dental hospital records of patients attending for outpatient GA extractions at Liverpool University Dental Hospital, Liverpool, UK, between January and March 2003 were examined retrospectively. A data collection form was used to record the relevant information. RESULTS: A total of 278 patients with a mean age of 6.5 years (SD = 2.2 years) were seen for GA extractions. Of those, 33 patients (11.9%) with a mean age of 4.9 years (SD = 2 years) at the time of their initial GA had had a previous or would undergo a subsequent episode of GA extraction. The mean interval between repeat GA was 2.3 years (SD = 1.6 years). Fifteen cases (45.5%) had the repeat GA within 2 years. Radiographs were available as part of the assessment process for 84 (34.3%) of the 245 patients who had had a single episode of GA. However, of the 33 patients who had had a repeat GA, only seven (21.2%) had radiographs available at the time of the initial GA. Regarding the number of teeth extracted, a significant difference (P < 0.01) was found between the number of teeth extracted in patients who had had a single GA (mean = 4.6, SD = 2.5), compared with those extracted at the initial GA for the repeat GA group (mean = 3.2, SD = 2). CONCLUSION: The frequency of repeat GA is relatively low, but there is a need for appropriate treatment planning incorporating the use of radiographs to reduce this even further.