Odontossecção intermediária em retenção atípica de caninos inferiores

Two lower canines horizontally situated in the anterior mental region were removed. In order to minimize bone loss during teeth extraction it was used an intermediate tooth section technique. Sectioning allows central, crown and apical portions of the tooth to be removed through a not too large opening provided by bone removal.

A Unique Way of Removing Mandibular Third Molars - Implosion Technique

The average time consumed for disimpaction of mandibular third molar using rotatory instruments was approximately 17 mins and 23 mins while using a piezotome. The authors introduce a new technique of disimpaction of mandibular third molar with the least amount of bone removal ever achieved during mandibular third molar removal. This technique can be readily included in routine clinical practice and can be performed by using routine rotary instruments. This technique was successfully accomplished in 10 individuals with the least amount of discomfort and post-operative complications reported from day 1 to day 14. The procedure was evaluated based on time of the procedure, pain score, bleeding, nerve injury, trismus, swelling & dry socket. Third molar removal has been the most frequently performed oral surgical procedure in the modern world of dentistry.1 Although, mandibular third molar is the most commonly performed procedure, it demands skill, technique and experience. Several techniques have been implied for disimpaction of mandibular third molar, but every method involves either considerable amount of bone removal or splitting the bone. Bone manipulation is done by using a rotary instruments or chisel and mallet. The most popular techniques are buccal bone guttering, distal bone removal, lingual bone split technique and lingual bone guttering.2 According to the traditional classifications of impacted mandibular third molar (Pell & Gregory and Winter’s classification), the minimum amount of bucco-distal bone removed during disimpaction of mesioangularly positioned class I A impacted mandibular third molar using rotary instruments and conventional techniques can be calculated as 157.5 mm2 (volume of a rectangle = L X W X H; where L = 15 mm, W = 1.5 mm [width of the bur] and H = 7 mm). The mandibular third molar requiring osteotomy and tooth section have the highest risk of complications3. Surgical time had significantly increased in cases which required osteotomy and tooth section. Post-operative swelling and pain has been recorded as significant complications after using rotary instruments via buccal approach followed by use of chisel & mallet and least in lingual split approach. On the contrary, post-operative nerve injury and trismus were significantly high in lingual split technique. Dry socket was more in patients of bur technique.2

Enamel and dentin microhardness of deciduous and permanent teeth formed in fluoride-iodine deficiency

Aim. To study the microhardness of enamel and dentin of deciduous and permanent teeth formed in fluoride-iodine deficiency. Methods. Enamel and dentin microhardness was examined on sections of 47 deciduous and 43 permanent teeth. Six topographic zones were examined on each tooth section, 24 imprints were performed. Enamel and dentin microhardness was determined on PMT-3M device and by Vicker’s Hardness Test with a load of 50 g for 5 seconds. Results. Enamel and dentin microhardness of permanent teeth is higher than that of deciduous ones. In the surface layer of enamel the microhardness of permanent teeth is 2.33-2.09 times higher compared to deciduous teeth (in incisors - by 2.24 times, canines - by 2.09 times, molars - by 2.33 times); 2.25-1.94 times higher in the middle layer (in incisors - by 2.17 times, canines - by 1.94 times, molars - by 2.25 times); 2.15-1.89 times higher in the enamel layer at the enamel-dentine junction (in incisors - by 2.15 times, canines - by 1.89 times, molars - by 2.03 times). In the dentin layer at the enamel-dentin junction, dentin microhardness of permanent teeth is 1.90-1.71 times higher than of deciduous ones (in incisors - by 1.78 times, canines - by 1.71 times, molars - by 1.90 times); 2.14-2.0 times higher in the middle dentin layer (in incisors - by 2.08 times, canines - by 2.0 times, in molars - by 2.14 times); 2.05-1.71 times higher in the near-pulp layer (in incisors - by 2.05 times, canines - by 1.71 times, molars - by 1.87 times). Conclusion. Enamel and dentin microhardness of deciduous and permanent teeth formed in fluoride-iodine deficiency varies considerably; microhardness of hard tissues of permanent teeth is approximately 2 times higher than that of deciduous teeth.

Radiopacity of 28 Composite Resins for Teeth Restorations

ABSTRACT Aim Radiopacity is a fundamental requisite to check marginal adaptation of restorations. Our objective was to assess the radiopacity of 28 brands of light-cured composite resins and compare their radiopacity with that of enamel, dentin, and aluminum of equivalent thickness. Materials and methods Composite resin disks (0.2, 0.5, and 1 mm) were radiographed by the digital method, together with an aluminum penetrometer and a human tooth equivalent tooth section. The degree of radiopacity of each image was quantified using digital image processing. Wilcoxon nonparametric test was used for comparison of the mean thickness of each material. Results All of the materials tested had an equal or greater radiopacity than that of aluminum of equivalent thickness. Similar results for enamel were found with the exception of Durafill, which was less radiopaque than enamel (p < 0.05). All the specimens were more radiopaque than dentin, except for P90 (which was equally radiopaque) and Durafill (which was less radiopaque). The thickness of the specimens may influence the similarity to the enamel's radiopacity. All of the composite resins comply with specification #27 of the American Dental Association. The radiopacity of Amelogen Plus, Aph, Brilhiante, Charisma, Concept Advanced, Evolux X, Exthet X, Inten S, Llis, Master Fill, Natural Look, Opallis, P60, Tetric, Tph, Z100, and Z250 was significantly higher than that of enamel (p < 0.05). Conclusion With these composites, it is possible to observe the boundaries between restoration and tooth structure, thus allowing clinicians to establish the presence of microleakage or restoration gap. Clinical significance Suitable radiopacity is an essential requisite for good-quality esthetic restorative materials. We demonstrate that only some composites have the sufficient radiopacity to observe the boundaries between restoration and tooth structure, which is the main cause of restoration failure. How to cite this article Raitz R, Moruzzi PD, Vieira G, Fenyo- Pereira M. Radiopacity of 28 Composite Resins for Teeth Restorations. J Contemp Dent Pract 2016;17(2):136-142.

A Four-Year Monocentric Study of the Complications of Third Molars Extractions under General Anesthesia: About 2112 Patients

Introduction. The aim of this study was to assess the complications resulting from third molar extraction under general anesthesia.Material and Methods. The retrospective study included all patients who underwent impacted third molars extraction from January 2008 until December 2011. 7659 third molars were extracted for 2112 patients. Postoperative complications were retrieved from medical files.Results. No complications were related to general anesthesia. The most frequent postoperative complication was infection (7.15%). Lingual nerve injuries affected 1.8% of the patients. All of them were transient and were not related to tooth section. Inferior alveolar nerve injuries were reported in 0.4% of the cases. 95.8% of these patients were admitted for one-day ambulatory care, and only two patients were readmitted after discharge from hospital.Discussion. This surgical technique offers comfort for both surgeons and patients. Risks are only linked to the surgical procedure as we observed no complication resulting from general anesthesia. One-day hospitalization offers a good balance between comfort, security, and cost. The incidence of complications is in agreement with the literature data, especially regarding pain, edema, and infectious and nervous complications. It is of utmost importance to discuss indications with patients, and to provide them with clear information.