The taper of cast post preparation measured using innovative image processing technique

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>No documentation in the literature about taper of cast posts. This study was conducted to measure the degree of cast posts taper, and to evaluate its suitability based on the anatomy aspects of the common candidate teeth for post reconstruction.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>Working casts for cast posts, prepared using Gates Glidden drills, were collected. Impressions of post spaces were made using polyvinyl siloxan putty/wash technique. Digital camera with a 10' high quality lens was used for capturing two digital images for each impression; one in the Facio-Lingual (FL) and the other in the Mesio-Distal (MD) directions. Automated image processing program was developed to measure the degree of canal taper. Data were analyzed using Statistical Package for Social Sciences software and One way Analysis of Variance.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>Eighty four dies for cast posts were collected: 16 for each maxillary anterior teeth subgroup, and 18 for each maxillary and mandibular premolar subgroup. Mean of total taper for all preparations was 10.7 degree. There were no statistical differences among the total taper of all groups (P = .256) or between the MD and FL taper for each subgroup. Mean FL taper for the maxillary first premolars was lower significantly (P = .003) than the maxillary FL taper of the second premolars. FL taper was higher than the MD taper in all teeth except the maxillary first premolars.</p> <p>Conclusions</p> <p>Taper produced did not reflect the differences among the anatomy of teeth. While this technique deemed satisfactory in the maxillary anterior teeth, the same could not be said for the maxillary first premolars. Careful attention to the root anatomy is mandatory.</p

Biomechanical aspects of oral implants Consensus report of Working Group I

The method used by the working group was an iterative process based upon a structured review of the relevant literature by a group of rapporteurs. The review papers were circulated to the members of the group before the conference and formed the basis for subsequent discussions. Each paper was subject to detailed collective analysis and subsequently modified on the basis of the panel's discussions and referenced to additional relevant literature where appropriate. The group assessed the levels of evidence for the statements made in the supporting documentation and recognized that it was necessary to adopt a compromise between acceptance of the lowest level, resulting in the largest body of material, and the highest level, which, in some cases, produced little evidence. While this approach does not represent endorsement of lower evidence levels per se, it was designed to provide conclusions of clinical utility within the existing knowledge base. The consensus statements were prepared after a detailed consideration of the papers submitted to the workshop by the working group. The papers were scrutinized, amended and approved by the group. The basis of each paper is described in the section on 'search strategy' and defines the parameters within which the consensus statements were prepared. © Blackwell Munksgaard 2006.link_to_subscribed_fulltex