Thursday, September 29, 2016

Sport a Healthy Smile – Use a Mouthguard

North Brunswick, NJ]  -- As your child gets ready for the fall sports season, don’t forget to have her fitted for a mouthguard. Mouthguards do more than protect your child’s teeth.  They also lessen the possibility of injury to the tongue, jaw, lips and face.  And, if your child wears braces, a mouthguard protects against damage to them, too.

Dr. Elisa Velazquez is a pediatric dentist and member of the New Jersey Dental Association who practices in Toms River and Manahawkin.  Dr. Lisa, as she is known to her patients, is a strong advocate for using a mouthguard during all types of sporting activities.  “Mouthguards protect the jaw, face and teeth from injury during contact sports, but are just as important for gymnasts, cheerleaders and other athletes who may take a hard fall or hit.” 

There are several types of mouthguard on the market.  The best quality is one that is custom fit by your dentist.  But other types are available from sporting goods stores.  “Boil and bite” guards are softened in hot water, placed in the mouth while warm and will shape to the athlete’s teeth.  “Stock” guards are also available, but are not customizable and offer the least protection.

It’s important for an athlete to wear a guard both during practice and games, and to keep them clean between uses.  Clean with a toothbrush and toothpaste or water.  Have your young athlete bring the mouthguard to the dentist as part of his check-up.  Your growing child may need to have their mouthguard re-fit over the course of their athletic career.

The New Jersey Dental Association offers a few other tips about smile safety during sports season:

·        Although mouthguards are usually worn only on the upper teeth, if your child wears braces they may need additional protection for the lower teeth. Check with your orthodontist.
·        Store the guard in a container that both protects the guard and offers ventilation to reduce the growth of bacteria.
·        Retainers should not be worn during sports.
·        Mouthguards should be replaced when they show signs of wear.

If your child hasn’t seen a dentist to prepare for fall sports, the New Jersey Dental Association offers a Find a Dentist feature on its website, www.njda.org.

Wednesday, September 28, 2016

OSAP Foundation Receives Major Grant

The Organization for Safety, Asepsis and Prevention (OSAP) Foundation has announced that it has been awarded a $95,000 grant from the Dental Assistants Foundation (DAF). The funding will be used in the areas of research, scholarship, and education for dental assistants in recognition of the critical role trained and motivated dental assistants play in ensuring the safety of the dental care environment for patients and providers of dental services.

The grant was given as a charitable contribution as part of the DAF dissolution plan. In awarding the grant, Ellen Landis, Chairman of DAF, said “The DAF recognizes the mission and goals of the OSAP Foundation to be in alignment with the DAF’s mission and goals as it applies to the education of dental assistants.” The grant was given in memory of Anna Nelson, CDA, RDA, MA, a leader in dental assisting and infection control who passionately advocated to advance dental assistants’ understanding of, and compliance with, the guidelines, regulations, and best practices to prevent disease transmission in dental settings.

The OSAP Foundation will use the DAF grant to fund a comprehensive safety education, scholarship, and research program geared toward dental assistants. The goal will be to underscore the importance of dental assistants, particularly in regard to the vital part they contribute to infection control. Specifically, the program will support dental assistants who serve—or want to serve—as the infection control coordinator in their practice setting. 

“The OSAP Foundation is particularly excited to announce this grant during Dental Infection Control Awareness Month,” says Executive Director Therese Long. “OSAP is focusing on the Infection Control Coordinator this month and is offering multiple free resources to support this important member of the dental team. We are anxious to further advance these efforts through this new grant and by leveraging our partnerships and resources.”

“The fact that DAF has demonstrated its confidence in the OSAP Foundation’s capabilities by awarding this generous grant,” says Long, “is a testament to our commitment to advancing the cause of infection prevention in dentistry. We will continue to develop and implement initiatives to help ensure the safe and infection-free delivery of oral healthcare.” For more information on Dental Infection Control Awareness Month, go to: http://www.osap.org/page/DICAM2016.

Tuesday, September 27, 2016

Surgical removal versus retention for the management of asymptomatic disease-free impacted wisdom teeth

  • Cochrane Oral Health Group
  • DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD003879.pub4
  •  
  • Abstract

    Background

    Prophylactic removal of asymptomatic disease-free impacted wisdom teeth is surgical removal of wisdom teeth in the absence of symptoms and with no evidence of local disease. Impacted wisdom teeth may be associated with pathological changes, such as pericoronitis, root resorption, gum and alveolar bone disease (periodontitis), caries and the development of cysts and tumours. When surgical removal is carried out in older people, the risk of postoperative complications, pain and discomfort is increased. Other reasons to justify prophylactic removal of asymptomatic disease-free impacted third molars have included preventing late lower incisor crowding, preventing damage to adjacent structures such as the second molar or the inferior alveolar nerve, in preparation for orthognathic surgery, in preparation for radiotherapy or during procedures to treat people with trauma to the affected area. Removal of asymptomatic disease-free wisdom teeth is a common procedure, and researchers must determine whether evidence supports this practice. This review is an update of an existing review published in 2012.

    Objectives

    To evaluate the effects of removal compared with retention (conservative management) of asymptomatic disease-free impacted wisdom teeth in adolescents and adults.

    Search methods

    We searched the following electronic databases: Cochrane Oral Health's Trials Register (to 24 May 2016), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (2016, Issue 4), MEDLINE Ovid (1946 to 24 May 2016) and Embase Ovid (1980 to 24 May 2016). We searched ClinicalTrials.gov and the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform for ongoing and unpublished studies to 24 May 2016. We imposed no restrictions on language or date of publication in our search of electronic databases.

    Selection criteria

    Studies comparing removal (or absence) with retention (or presence) of asymptomatic disease-free impacted wisdom teeth in adolescents or adults. We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) with no restriction on length of follow-up, if available. We considered quasi-RCTs and prospective cohort studies for inclusion if investigators measured outcomes with follow-up of five years or longer.

    Data collection and analysis

    Eight review authors screened search results and assessed the eligibility of studies for inclusion according to the review inclusion criteria. Eight review authors independently conducted risk of bias assessments in duplicate. When information was unclear, we contacted study authors for additional information.

    Main results

    This review includes two studies. The previous review included one RCT with a parallel-group design, which was conducted in a dental hospital setting in the United Kingdom; our new search for this update identified one prospective cohort study conducted in the private sector in the USA.
    Primary outcome
    No eligible studies in this review reported the effects of removal compared with retention of asymptomatic disease-free impacted wisdom teeth on health-related quality of life
    Secondary outcomes
    We found only low to very low quality evidence of the effects of removal compared with retention of asymptomatic disease-free impacted wisdom teeth for a limited number of secondary outcome measures.
    One prospective cohort study, reporting data from a subgroup of 416 healthy male participants, aged 24 to 84 years, compared the effect of the absence (previous removal or agenesis) against the presence of asymptomatic disease-free impacted wisdom teeth on periodontitis and caries associated with the distal of the adjacent second molar during a follow-up period of three to over 25 years. Very low quality evidence suggests that the presence of asymptomatic disease-free impacted wisdom teeth may be associated with increased risk of periodontitis affecting the adjacent second molar in the long term. In the same study, which is at serious risk of bias, there is insufficient evidence to demonstrate a difference in caries risk associated with the presence or absence of impacted wisdom teeth.
    One RCT with 164 randomised and 77 analysed adolescent participants compared the effect of extraction with retention of asymptomatic disease-free impacted wisdom teeth on dimensional changes in the dental arch after five years. Participants (55% female) had previously undergone orthodontic treatment and had 'crowded' wisdom teeth. No evidence from this study, which was at high risk of bias, was found to suggest that removal of asymptomatic disease-free impacted wisdom teeth has a clinically significant effect on dimensional changes in the dental arch.
    The included studies did not measure our other secondary outcomes: costs, other adverse events associated with retention of asymptomatic disease-free impacted wisdom teeth (pericoronitis, root resorption, cyst formation, tumour formation, inflammation/infection) and adverse effects associated with their removal (alveolar osteitis/postoperative infection, nerve injury, damage to adjacent teeth during surgery, bleeding, osteonecrosis related to medication/radiotherapy, inflammation/infection).

    Authors' conclusions

    Insufficient evidence is available to determine whether or not asymptomatic disease-free impacted wisdom teeth should be removed. Although asymptomatic disease-free impacted wisdom teeth may be associated with increased risk of periodontitis affecting adjacent second molars in the long term, the evidence is of very low quality. Well-designed RCTs investigating long-term and rare effects of retention and removal of asymptomatic disease-free impacted wisdom teeth, in a representative group of individuals, are unlikely to be feasible. In their continuing absence, high quality, long-term prospective cohort studies may provide valuable evidence in the future. Given the lack of available evidence, patient values should be considered and clinical expertise used to guide shared decision making with patients who have asymptomatic disease-free impacted wisdom teeth. If the decision is made to retain asymptomatic disease-free impacted wisdom teeth, clinical assessment at regular intervals to prevent undesirable outcomes is advisable.

    Plain language summary

    Surgical removal versus retention for the management of asymptomatic disease-free impacted wisdom teeth
    Review question
    This review, produced through Cochrane Oral Health, seeks to assess the effects of removal compared with conservative management of impacted wisdom teeth, in the absence of symptoms and without evidence of local disease, in adolescents and adults. This is an update of an existing review published in 2012.
    Background
    Wisdom teeth, or third molars, generally erupt between the ages of 17 and 26 years. These are the last teeth to erupt, and they normally erupt into a position closely behind the last standing teeth (second molars). Space for these teeth to erupt can be limited. Wisdom teeth often fail to erupt or erupt only partially, which is often due to impaction of the wisdom teeth against the second molars (teeth directly in front of the wisdom teeth). In most cases, this occurs when second molars are blocking the path of eruption of third molar teeth and act as a physical barrier, preventing complete eruption. An impacted wisdom tooth is called asymptomatic and disease-free in the absence of signs and symptoms of disease affecting the wisdom tooth or nearby structures.
    Impacted wisdom teeth can cause swelling and ulceration of the gums around the wisdom teeth, damage to the roots of second molars, decay in second molars, gum and bone disease around second molars and development of cysts or tumours. General agreement exists that removal of wisdom teeth is appropriate if signs or symptoms of disease related to the wisdom teeth are present. Less agreement exists about the appropriate management of asymptomatic disease-free impacted wisdom teeth.
    Study characteristics
    We searched the medical literature up to May 2016 and found one randomised controlled trial (RCT) and one prospective cohort study to include in this review. These studies involved 493 participants in total. The RCT conducted at a dental hospital in the UK included 77 adolescent male and female participants, and the cohort study conducted at a private dental clinic in the USA involved 416 men aged 24 to 84 years.
    Key results
    Available evidence is insufficient to show whether or not asymptomatic disease-free impacted wisdom teeth should be removed.
    One study at serious risk of bias provided very low quality evidence suggesting that the presence of asymptomatic disease-free impacted wisdom teeth is associated with increased risk of periodontitis (infection of the gums) affecting the adjacent second molar (teeth directly in front of the wisdom teeth) in the long term. In the same study, no evidence was found to suggest that the presence of asymptomatic disease-free impacted wisdom teeth increases the risk of caries affecting the adjacent second molar.
    Another study, also at high risk of bias, found no evidence to suggest that removal of asymptomatic disease-free impacted wisdom teeth has an effect on crowding in the dental arch.
    The included studies did not measure our primary outcome - health-related quality of life. Nor did they measure our secondary outcomes - costs, other adverse events associated with retention of asymptomatic disease-free impacted wisdom teeth (pericoronitis, root resorption, cyst formation, tumour formation, inflammation/infection) and adverse effects associated with their removal (alveolar osteitis/postoperative infection, nerve injury, damage to adjacent teeth during surgery, bleeding, osteonecrosis related to medication/radiotherapy, inflammation/infection).
    Quality of the evidence
    Evidence provided by the two studies included in this review is of low to very low quality, so we cannot rely on these findings. High-quality research is urgently needed to support clinical practice in this area. In light of the lack of available evidence, patient values should be considered and clinical expertise used when treatment decisions are made with patients who have asymptomatic disease-free impacted wisdom teeth. If the decision is made to retain asymptomatic disease-free impacted wisdom teeth, clinical assessment at regular intervals is advisable to prevent undesirable outcomes.
     

Monday, September 26, 2016

Community-based population-level interventions for promoting child oral health

 

Abstract

Background

Dental caries and gingival and periodontal disease are commonly occurring, preventable chronic conditions. Even though much is known about how to treat oral disease, currently we do not know which community-based population-level interventions are most effective and equitable in preventing poor oral health.

Objectives

Primary
• To determine the effectiveness of community-based population-level oral health promotion interventions in preventing dental caries and gingival and periodontal disease among children from birth to 18 years of age.
Secondary
• To determine the most effective types of interventions (environmental, social, community and multi-component) and guiding theoretical frameworks.
• To identify interventions that reduce inequality in oral health outcomes.
• To examine the influence of context in the design, delivery and outcomes of interventions.

Search methods

We searched the following databases from January 1996 to April 2014: MEDLINE, Embase, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL), the Education Resource Information Center (ERIC), BIOSIS Previews, Web of Science, the Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects (DARE), ScienceDirect, Sociological Abstracts, Social Science Citation Index, PsycINFO, SCOPUS, ProQuest Dissertations & Theses and Conference Proceedings Citation Index - Science.

Selection criteria

Included studies were individual- and cluster-randomised controlled trials (RCTs), controlled before-and-after studies and quasi-experimental and interrupted time series. To be included, interventions had to target the primary outcomes: dental caries (measured as decayed, missing and filled deciduous teeth/surfaces, dmft/s; Decayed, Missing and Filled permanent teeth/surfaces, DMFT/S) and gingival or periodontal disease among children from birth to 18 years of age. Studies had to report on one or more of the primary outcomes at baseline and post intervention, or had to provide change scores for both intervention and control groups. Interventions were excluded if they were solely of a chemical nature (e.g. chlorhexidine, fluoride varnish), were delivered primarily in a dental clinical setting or comprised solely fluoridation.

Data collection and analysis

Two review authors independently performed screening, data extraction and assessment of risk of bias of included studies (a team of six review authors - four review authors and two research assistants - assessed all studies). We calculated mean differences with 95% confidence intervals for continuous data. When data permitted, we undertook meta-analysis of primary outcome measures using a fixed-effect model to summarise results across studies. We used the I2 statistic as a measure of statistical heterogeneity.

Main results

This review includes findings from 38 studies (total n = 119,789 children, including one national study of 99,071 children, which contributed 80% of total participants) on community-based oral health promotion interventions delivered in a variety of settings and incorporating a range of health promotion strategies (e.g. policy, educational activities, professional oral health care, supervised toothbrushing programmes, motivational interviewing). We categorised interventions as dietary interventions (n = 3), oral health education (OHE) alone (n = 17), OHE in combination with supervised toothbrushing with fluoridated toothpaste (n = 8) and OHE in combination with a variety of other interventions (including professional preventive oral health care, n = 10). Interventions generally were implemented for less than one year (n = 26), and only 11 studies were RCTs. We graded the evidence as having moderate to very low quality.
We conducted meta-analyses examining impact on dental caries of each intervention type, although not all studies provided sufficient data to allow pooling of effects across similar interventions. Meta-analyses of the effects of OHE alone on caries may show little or no effect on DMFT (two studies, mean difference (MD) 0.12, 95% confidence interval (CI) -0.11 to 0.36, low-quality evidence), dmft (three studies, MD -0.3, 95% CI -1.11 to 0.52, low-quality evidence) and DMFS (one study, MD -0.01, 95% CI -0.24 to 0.22, very low-quality evidence). Analysis of studies testing OHE in combination with supervised toothbrushing with fluoridated toothpaste may show a beneficial effect on dmfs (three studies, MD -1.59, 95% CI -2.67 to -0.52, low-quality evidence) and dmft (two studies, MD -0.97, 95% CI -1.06 to -0.89, low-quality evidence) but may show little effect on DMFS (two studies, MD -0.02, 95% CI -0.13 to 0.10, low-quality evidence) and DMFT (three studies, MD -0.02, 95% CI -0.11 to 0.07, moderate-quality evidence). Meta-analyses of two studies of OHE in an educational setting combined with professional preventive oral care in a dental clinic setting probably show a very small effect on DMFT (-0.09 weighted mean difference (WMD), 95% CI -0.1 to -0.08, moderate-quality evidence). Data were inadequate for meta-analyses on gingival health, although positive impact was reported.

Authors' conclusions

This review provides evidence of low certainty suggesting that community-based oral health promotion interventions that combine oral health education with supervised toothbrushing or professional preventive oral care can reduce dental caries in children. Other interventions, such as those that aim to promote access to fluoride, improve children's diets or provide oral health education alone, show only limited impact. We found no clear indication of when is the most effective time to intervene during childhood. Cost-effectiveness, long-term sustainability and equity of impacts and adverse outcomes were not widely reported by study authors, limiting our ability to make inferences on these aspects. More rigorous measurement and reporting of study results would improve the quality of the evidence.

Plain language summary

Community-based population-level interventions for promoting child oral health
Tooth decay (caries) and gum disease are commonly occurring, preventable chronic conditions that can develop early in childhood and have lifelong impact on health and quality of life. These diseases are often seen in disadvantaged communities, and preventing the development of disease from an early age is considered an important step in reducing health inequalities across the population. Although much is known about how to treat oral disease clinically, we do not know which community-based population-level interventions are most effective and equitable in preventing poor oral health.
This review examined the evidence base from January 1996 until April 2014 on effective community-based oral health promotion interventions for preventing caries and gum disease among children from birth to 18 years of age.
We found little evidence that oral health education alone can make a difference in the level of caries, although some studies have reported improvements in gum health, oral hygiene behaviours and oral cleanliness. Oral health promotion interventions that included supervised toothbrushing with fluoridated toothpaste were generally found to be effective in reducing caries in children's baby teeth. Interventions of oral health education provided in an educational setting combined with professional preventive oral care in a dental clinic were effective in reducing caries in children's permanent teeth. We found several studies that offered multi-component and multi-setting interventions. Although these interventions were varied in nature (oral health education coupled with interventions such as toothpaste provision, sugarless chewing gum, motivational interviewing, professional oral care, training of non-dental professionals, fluoride varnish application and fluoride supplements), researchers reported a positive impact in most of the studies in this group. Interventions that focus on diet and reduced sugar consumption also hold promise for reducing caries, but additional studies are needed.
Interventions included in this review were diverse and were delivered in a range of childhood settings, including education, community, healthcare and home environments. Most interventions were delivered in educational settings; however, studies did not report broadly on the extent and nature of engagement with students, educators, caregivers and oral health service providers. Improvements can be made in recognising the multiple influences of broader determinants linked to clinical oral health outcomes, for example, oral health knowledge, behaviours and practices and healthcare systems, including those involving a psychosocial environment. More rigorous measurement and reporting of study findings would improve the quality of available evidence

Friday, September 23, 2016

YouTube Culture Spreading DIY Dentistry.


A piece in the American Student Dental Association’s September issue of ASDA News discusses do-it-yourself dentistry, a trend that is spreading through a number of YouTube videos highlighting the practice. For example, a video seen nearly 2.2 million times that is titled “Dentists Hate This Video!” shows a young woman using a do-it-yourself method for a cavity. Her video is “one of hundreds touting all kinds of homegrown cures for dental problems.” The article states lack of dental coverage and dental fear seem to motivate most of the “do-it-yourselfers.” Those two factors, “combined with internet access,” have resulted in “a do-it-yourself mentality of dental diagnosis and treatment that isn’t likely to end well.” In addition, “a growing number of people who take dental care into their own hands” are motivated by trust, the article states. “Building trust with patients is the most important thing you can do as a dentist,” says Dr. Kim Harms, ADA spokeswoman. “It’s your No. 1 clinical commodity. Unless patients can feel like they’re in control over their treatment plan, they won’t come to you.”

Thursday, September 22, 2016

Harris Williams & Co. Ltd Advises the Shareholders of exocad GmbH on its Pending Sale of a Majority Stake to The Carlyle Group


Frankfurt, Germany, September 13, 2016 - Harris Williams & Co. Ltd, a preeminent middle market investment bank focused on the advisory needs of clients worldwide, is exclusively advising the shareholders of exocad GmbH (exocad), a provider of CAD/CAM (Computer Aided Design/Computer Aided Manufacturing) software for the dental industry, on its pending sale of a majority stake to The Carlyle Group (Carlyle; NASDAQ: CG). With the acquisition, Carlyle continues its history of partnering with sector leaders with strong management teams, looking to accelerate the next stage of their growth. The pending transaction is expected to close in the third quarter of 2016 and is being led by Jeffery Perkins, Lars Friemann and Stephan Döring of Harris Williams & Co.’s Frankfurt office as well as Thierry Monjauze and Samuel Hendler of the firm’s Technology, Media & Telecom (TMT) Group.
Dr. Thorsten Dippel, a managing director at Carlyle Europe Technology Partners (CETP) commented, “We’ve been impressed with exocad’s innovative dental CAD/CAM software solutions which are strongly valued by its customers. exocad’s position within the dental CAD/CAM software market in combination with Carlyle’s global network, especially in the U.S. and Asia, are a unique opportunity to further develop exocad into a truly global champion. CETP has a strong track record of investing in business critical software companies and we are delighted to be partnering with exocad and its entrepreneurial management team.”
Tillmann Steinbrecher, exocad’s chief executive officer, and Maik Gerth, chief technology officer, added, “With Harris Williams & Co., we found the right advisor whose hands-on approach and commitment to a high quality work product resulted in an outcome which exceeded the shareholders’ expectations.  In partnering with Carlyle, we seek to leverage new opportunities in current and new markets, and drive the continued growth and customer-focused innovation that the company has consistently delivered.”
Jeffery Perkins, a managing director at Harris Williams & Co., stated, “This transaction is in line with our successful track record of advising privately owned businesses. Our extensive sell-side track record, expertise in the healthcare and TMT spaces, as well as our global network with excellent access to strategic buyers and the private equity community, enabled us to help exocad find the right partner for its future growth.”
Fraunhofer-Gesellschaft, acting through Fraunhofer Venture, will completely exit its stake in exocad, while the founders will remain significant shareholders in the company.
exocad is a dynamic and innovative dental CAD/CAM software company committed to expanding the possibilities of digital dentistry and providing its distribution partners flexible, reliable and easy-to-use software. exocad's technology enables system integrators to turn equipment into comprehensive, class-leading solutions. The company is headquartered in Darmstadt, Germany, and has five offices worldwide. exocad was spun out of the Fraunhofer Institute for Computer Graphics Research IGD in 2010 and it has since established itself as a leading independent developer of dental CAD/CAM software solutions. Its products are sold via a diversified network of partners and system-integrators as part of OEMs’ CAD/CAM equipment across more than 120 countries worldwide.
Fraunhofer Venture is a department of Fraunhofer-Gesellschaft, and partner for founders, start-ups, Fraunhofer Institutes, industry and venture capital investors.
Carlyle is a global alternative asset manager with $176 billion of assets under management across 127 funds and 164 fund of funds vehicles as of June 30, 2016. Carlyle’s purpose is to invest wisely and create value on behalf of its investors, many of whom are public pensions. Carlyle invests across four segments – Corporate Private Equity, Real Assets, Global Market Strategies and Investment Solutions – in Africa, Asia, Australia, Europe, the Middle East, North America and South America. Carlyle has expertise in various industries, including: aerospace, defense and government services, consumer and retail, energy, financial services, healthcare, industrial, real estate, technology and business services, telecommunications and media and transportation. Carlyle employs more than 1,650 people in 35 offices across six continents.
Harris Williams & Co. (www.harriswilliams.com), a member of The PNC Financial Services Group, Inc. (NYSE:PNC), is a preeminent middle market investment bank focused on the advisory needs of clients worldwide.  The firm has deep industry knowledge, global transaction expertise and an unwavering commitment to excellence. Harris Williams & Co. provides sell-side and acquisition advisory, restructuring advisory, board advisory, private placements and capital markets advisory services.
Harris Williams & Co. Ltd is a private limited company incorporated under English law having its registered office at 5th Floor, 6 St. Andrew Street, London EC4A 3AE, UK, registered with the Registrar of Companies for England and Wales under company number 7078852. Directors: Mr. Ned Valentine, Mr. Paul Poggi, Mr. Thierry Monjauze and Mr. Aadil Khan, authorized and regulated by the Financial Conduct Authority.

Ceramir Special 2 for 1. The cement that I use.



2 DAYS FOR 2+1
PLUS, NO LIMIT ON ORDERS

OFFER EXPIRES SEPT 23, 2016 11:59AM PST
USE CODE: DOX09E

Wednesday, September 21, 2016

Tech Expo At ADA 2016 Will Showcase Innovations.

Come join me in the Tech Expo on Saturday at the ADA.  Lectures on Apps for you Office and Hot Technologies. MJ


The ADA News (9/9, Burger) reported the Technology Expo at ADA 2016 – America’s Dental Meeting will allow dental professionals to test “some of the most cutting-edge technologies in the dental field today.” The Tech Expo, located in the Exhibit Hall at booth #2851, will feature the Cellerant Best of Class Technology Awards and 14 free “continuing education courses on the latest developments in dental technology.”
        The ADA News (9/9) added that dental professionals can also “book one-on-one appointments” with the Cellerant Best of Class Technology award winners. To avoid lines, book appointments in advance at scorbydesign.com/ssmedianews/DemoConcierge.html.
        ADA 2016 will convene in Denver Oct. 20-24. For the most updated information, visit ADA.org/meeting. All CE courses are listed at eventscribe.com/2016/ADA/.