Abstract

No Abstract Available.

Abstract

No Abstract Available.

Abstract

No Abstract Available.

Abstract

Clinical rigidity (“osseointegration”) was achieved by 94 percent of the titanium implants placed in dog mandibles. All loaded implants remained rigid. Inadvertent impingement on the periodontal ligament and roots of adjacent teeth was uneventful. Microradiographic imaging was more reliable than polarized light microscopy for assessing bone contact at the endosseous interface. Implants with <10 percent of the endosseous interface in direct contact with bone successfully resisted acontinuous load of 3 N (>300 grams) for 13 weeks.

Abstract

The present paper describes the craniofacial form of subjects with maxillonasal dysplasia and reports its occurrence in two siblings who also have cleft palate and mandibular retrognathia. Maxillonasal dysplasia and a cleft deformity may be illustrative of a field effect of a teratogen on developing midface components or even suggestive of a possible inherited etiology.

Abstract

No Abstract Available.

Abstract

No Abstract Available

Abstract

Questions exist concerning the degree to which orthodontic treatment alters facial form. This study has attempted to discern changes in several measures of vertical facial form which might be influenced by varying vectors and amounts of extraoral force. The data were collected from pre- and posttreatment lateral cephalograms of 200 children treated consecutively with full edgewise orthodontic appliances.

The sample was divided into three pretreatment groups based on the type of extraoral force delivered; cervical, “combi,” and no-headgear. All groups showed a wide range of variation in treatment response, but did not demonstrate significant differences. While the extraoral forces predictably improved horizontal maxillo-mandibular discrepancies, there was too much variation in response to predict vertical changes.

Abstract

This paper defines tooth transposition and discusses its history, incidence and possible etiology. An interesting parallel is drawn between tooth transposition and other dental anomalies (number, size, shape and location of teeth). Treatment options are discussed in terms of the age at which the transposition is discovered, as well as in terms of severity and completeness of the anomaly. While a logical and relatively predictable treatment solution should normally be considered, in some selected cases it may be prudent to venture into more complex treatment solutions.

Abstract

In a cross-sectional study of midline diastemas in a South Indian (Madras) population, 9,774 patients aged 13–35 years were screened. True midline diastema was defined as one without periodontal/periapical involvement and with the presence of all anterior teeth in the arch. Sample purification resulted in a research sample of 166 patients with true midline diastemas. The incidence of true maxillary midline diastema (160/9774 — 1.6%) was greater than that of true mandibular midline diastemas (31/9774 — 0.3%). No direct etiologic factor for the midline diastemas was noted. Spacing in the anterior region was the most significant factor associated with the midline diastema.

Abstract

Cephalometric records of 60 fetuses were combined on a coordinate reference grid to measure the statistical spread of the outlines. When centroid instead of anatomical points were used for superimposition of records, the spread of the outlines was reduced dramatically, being statistically significant (p<0.0001). The centroid is a mean point being less variable and preferable to anatomical points commonly used for comparing successive cephalometric records.

Abstract

Change in molar space is compared in 48 mandibular first premolar extraction cases and 46 non-extraction cases over a five year period. Significantly greater increase in molar space is found in extraction cases. It is, to some extent, related to the initial degree of crowding.

Abstract

In 1900, Edward H. Angle wrote that all teeth should be considered when classifying cases; in 1907, he emphasized using the maxillary first molars as reference teeth. Arguments are presented to illustrate the confusion in relying solely on Angle’s system of classification. The criteria for a discrete versus a continuous variable is discussed.

Abstract

No Abstract Available.

Abstract

No Abstract Available.

Abstract

No Abstract Available

Abstract

No Abstract Available