[Measurement of mesiodistal root angulation for panoramic images and the effect of buccolingual root angulation]. / Evaluation de l'angulation radiculaire mésio-distale pour les images panoramiques et l'impact de l'angulation radiculaire vestibulo-linguale.

Panoramic images were taken from an anatomically correct phantom with three different buccolingual angulations for each tooth (Original, 10 degrees buccal root torque, and 10 degrees lingual root torque). The true mesiodistal angulation of each tooth was determined with a three-dimensional coordinate measurement machine. Each tooth had at least one angle measurement that was statistically different from the other mesiodistal angles with different buccolingual orientations. Roots with buccal root orientations were projected more distally than they were in reality; and the roots lingually positioned were projected more mesially. The canine and premolars in both arches were most affected and the phenomenon was more pronounced in the maxilla than the mandible. Buccolingual orientation changes did not affect the root angulation expression on the incisor area.

Effect of buccolingual root angulation on the mesiodistal angulation shown on panoramic radiographs.

INTRODUCTION: The purpose of this study was to evaluate the effect of buccolingual root angulation on the perception of root parallelism in panoramic images. METHODS: A skull-typodont device was constructed according to cephalometric norms. The bases of the typodont were partially sectioned so that the buccolingual orientation of 4 adjacent pairs of teeth could be easily modified. Three buccolingual angulations were used for each tooth. Nine image sequences were necessary to analyze all possible buccolingual orientation combinations between adjacent teeth. The true root parallelism angulations relative to an orthodontic archwire were compared with the angulations obtained from scanned panoramic films. RESULTS: The largest root parallelism differences for adjacent teeth occurred between the maxillary canine and the first premolar. The second largest differences occurred in the mandibular canine-premolar area. No significant differences were found in the incisor area. CONCLUSIONS: The root parallelism expression in the canine-premolar region can be modified by altering the buccolingual orientation. Buccolingual orientation changes do not seem to affect the incisor area. The clinical usefulness of panoramic radiography to assess root parallelism should be approached with caution, especially in premolar extraction sites.

Argon laser vs conventional visible light-cured orthodontic bracket bonding: an in-vivo and in-vitro study.

INTRODUCTION: Many advantages of argon lasers have been reported, including high-speed orthodontic adhesive curing and less enamel demineralization. The purpose of this study was to compare bond strengths after curing with the argon laser (10 seconds) and the conventional curing light (40 seconds) in vivo and in vitro. METHODS: Four premolars from each of 23 volunteers were randomly assigned to either the argon laser group or the conventional light group for the in-vivo study. Shear bond strengths were measured after 14 days with custom-designed debonding pliers. In-vitro bond strengths were measured by using 4 premolars from each of 25 volunteers. Shear bond strength was measured after 14 days of thermocycling with the same protocol as the in-vivo study. Adhesive remnant index scores (ARI) were determined. RESULTS: No significant differences were found in bond strengths according to curing method, dental arch, or sex. In-vivo results were significantly lower (P < .05) than in-vitro results. A significant (P < .05) difference in ARI scores between the curing methods was determined; no significant correlation between mean bond strengths and ARI scores was determined. CONCLUSIONS: Bond strength for argon laser curing is comparable to conventional light curing and is sufficient for clinical applications. Although the argon laser left more adhesive on the tooth surfaces on debonding, there was no increase in enamel surface fractures.

Validity, reliability, and reproducibility of plaster vs digital study models: comparison of peer assessment rating and Bolton analysis and their constituent measurements.

INTRODUCTION: The objective of this validation study was to compare standard plaster models (the current gold standard for cast measurements) with their digital counterparts made with emodel software (version 6.0, GeoDigm, Chanhassen, Minn) for the analysis of tooth sizes and occlusal relationships--specifically the Bolton analysis and the peer assessment rating (PAR) index and their components. METHODS: Dental casts were poured from 24 subjects with 8 malocclusion types grouped according to American Board of Orthodontics categories. Measurements were made with a digital caliper to the nearest 0.01 mm from plaster models and with the software from the digital models. A paired samples t test was used to compare reliability and validity of measurements between plaster and digital methods. RESULTS: Reproducibility of digital models via the concordance correlation coefficient was excellent in most cases and good in some. Although statistically significant differences in some measurements were found for the reliability and validity of the digital models via the average mean of the absolute differences of repeated measurements, none was clinically significant. Grouping of the measurements according to the 8 American Board of Orthodontics categories produced no significant difference (Kruskal-Wallis test). No measurement associated with Bolton analysis or PAR index made on plaster vs digital models showed a clinically significant difference. The PAR analysis and its constituent measurements were not significantly different clinically between plaster and emodel media. CONCLUSIONS: Preliminary results did not indicate that digital models would cause an orthodontist to make a different diagnosis of malocclusion compared with plaster models; digital models are not a compromised choice for treatment planning or diagnosis.

Condylar shape analysis using panoramic radiography units and conventional tomography.

OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to compare condyle shape between lateral temporomandibular joint (TMJ) images from axially corrected tomography and 3 panoramic radiography units with TMJ-specific programs. STUDY DESIGN: The TMJ from a single dry human skull was imaged with multidirectional tomography and the following 3 panoramic radiography units: Instrumentarium OP 100, Planmeca PM 2002 CC Proline, and Soredex Orthophos DS. A curve-fitting procedure (spline curves) was used to mathematically describe condyle outlines. One sample t tests were used to compare panoramic images against the tomograms (gold standard). RESULTS: A significant difference (P < .05) in condyle shape was found between TMJ tomography images and each of the 3 panoramic images. Images from the PM 2002 CC Proline demonstrated the smallest shape difference (13.4%), followed by the OP 100 (17.5%) and the Orthophos DS (24.8%). CONCLUSION: If panoramic radiography is to be used for the initial radiographic examination of the TMJ, practitioners should be aware of the potential for shape distortion of the condyle.