Abstract

Introduction

Materials and Methods

Results

Conclusions

The purpose of this study was to compare the pain experiences of pediatric dental patients with the use of a buffered local anesthetic versus customary non-buffered local anesthetic. Twenty subjects, between ages nine and twelve, were enrolled in this prospective, double-blind, randomized, crossover trial stratified by gender. The clinician screened, examined, and delivered both types of anesthetic, and patients were evaluated for pain after injection using Visual Analog Scales (VAS). Results showed pain scores for buffered anesthetic to trend lower, although the difference was not statistically significant from that of the conventionally available anesthetic. Data demonstrated safety in pediatric subjects. This study has developed a framework to further test local anesthesia at physiologic pH in pediatric dental patients.

Patients with a severely resorbed edentulous mandible suffer with various problems including mucosal pain, poor denture retention, abnormal speech and mastication, altered facial appearance, and loss of soft tissue support. These patients are often not candidates for a conventional denture or standard implant retained or supported overdenture. Mini-dental implants (MDI) have gained recent support, especially in these cases, to provide increased retention of mandibular conventional dentures. MDIs have been marketed to be placed without mucoperiosteal reflection, loaded immediately, and offer a less expensive alternative treatment option to the edentulous patient. Patients were evaluated with QOL surveys before and after implant placement and will be followed for a total of 6 years. The QOL surveys were measured using VAS scales filled out by patients. The results showed that there was no significant difference in patient QOL between MDIs and SDIs placed in the interforaminal area in the mandible for all QOL parameters.

Objectives: To evaluate if a self-instructional video delivered through a device or platform is an effective way for dental students to learn oral hygiene instructions by comparing first year dental student opinions to those of more senior dental students.

Methods: A total of 119 pre-doctoral and post-doctoral dental students (67 first year dental students and 52 second, third, fourth, and postgraduate students participated in the study) at University of California San Francisco School of Dentistry participated in this study. A 9 minute 40 second oral hygiene instructional video using typodont models and live patients to demonstrate proper use of a toothbrush, floss, floss threader, floss holder, interdental brush, Perio-aid®, end tufted brush, and disclosing tablet was viewed using any device or platform of their choice (desktop computer, laptop computer, computer tablet, or mobile phone). After viewing the video, the students completed a 29-question survey evaluating the effectiveness of the video from a "patient's" perspective (playing a role as a patient receiving oral hygiene instructions) and from a "clinician's" perspective (playing a role as a clinician learning how to teach oral hygiene). There were 4

opinion-questions where the subjects were able to provide comments regarding the video. Data were compared between two-groups: first year dental students (junior group) and second, third, fourth, and postgraduate students (senior group). Data were analyzed using the Mann-Whitney rank sum test.

Results: There was statistical significance in terms of "gaining confidence" in performing effective oral hygiene from a "patient's" perspective and giving oral hygiene instructions from a "clinician's" perspective after watching the video (p<0.05). Recommending this video to others to "learn" effective oral hygiene from a "patient's" perspective and to "use" this video as a patient education tool from a "clinician's" perspective (p<0.05) also had statistical significance. The subjects overall impressions indicate that technology-based education and patient-clinician dialogue were the most favorable approach for oral hygiene instructions. There was no difference in learning between junior and senior groups.

Conclusion: Self-instructional video for oral hygiene for dental students was effective in understanding oral hygiene in terms of patient and clinician's perspective.

Patients with a severely resorbed edentulous mandible suffer with various problems including mucosal pain, poor denture retention, abnormal speech and mastication, altered facial appearance, and loss of soft tissue support. These patients are often not candidates for a conventional denture or a standard implant retained or supported overdenture. Mini-dental implants (MDI) has gained recent support, especially in these cases, to provide increased tolerance and retention of mandibular conventional dentures. MDIs have been marketed to be placed without mucoperiosteal reflection, loaded immediately, and offer a less expensive alternative treatment option to the edentulous patient.

Patients were evaluated with QOL surveys before and after implant placement and will be followed for a total of 6 years. The QOL surveys were measured using VAS scales filled out by the patients. The results showed that there was no significant difference in patient QOL between MDIs and SDIs placed in the interforaminal area in the mandible 3 months after implant placement for all QOL parameters.

Abstract:

Background: This study tested the hypothesis that various silicon ions concentrations have effects on osteoblast proliferation, gene and extracellular matrix expression. It also explored possible pathway of how silicon is effecting osteoblast differentiation.

Methods: MC3T3 cells were grow in vitro with alpha-mem solution and were treated with 10, 100, 1000uM silicon solution, and combination of Sp7/Osterix SiRNA and silicon solution. Cells were treated with cell proliferation assay, stained with Picosirius staining, and gene expressions were measured with reverse transcriptase polymerase chain reaction.

Results: Silicon treatment alone did not have an effect on cell proliferation compared to control during a 6-day period. Histology slides showed 100uM silicon has the most collagen fibrils compared to 10uM, 1000uM, and control on day 1. By day 7 the control and 100uM showed comparable amount of collagen fibrils where 10uM and 1000uM treatments had much fewer visible fibrils. Gene expression results agreed with histology slides. On day 1, cells with 100uM silicon treatment had a significant increase (p<0.05) in Col1α1 expression, and cells with 1000uM silicon had an increase (p<0.05) in Col1α2 expression. There were no significant differences in gene expression with various treatments by day 7. 100uM silicon caused significant increase (p<0.05) gene expressions for Sp7, Col5α3, BMP1, and Smad 5. Cells treated Sp7/Osterix SiRNA showed a significant decrease gene expression in Sp7, BMP1, Smad4, Smad5, and AKP2.

Conclusion: Silicon treatment did not effect cell proliferation, but did increase collagen expression in osteoblast cells. 100uM was the most optimum concentration for collagen expression compared to 10uM and 1000uM. One possible mechanism of how silicon effects osteoblast cells is through BMP1, that increase Smad5 production, and leads to cells signaling for more collagen production. More work is needed to confirm the mechanistic effect of silicon.