Friday, April 24, 2015

Improving Patient Loyalty

Presented By  TeleVox

Thursday, April 23, 2015

Carestream Dental Equipment Installed in OHSU School of Dentistry’s New Home

ATLANTA — When students in Oregon Health & Science University’s School of Dentistry started the 2014-2015 school year in the new Collaborative Life Sciences Building and Skourtes Tower, they found brand new Carestream Dental equipment installed throughout the facility. Carestream Dental donated a CS 9300C system to the OHSU School of Dentistry, and the school purchased additional Carestream Dental equipment, including RVG 6100 sensors, two CS 9000C extraoral imaging systems and a CS 9000 extraoral imaging system.
“We are grateful for this generous equipment donation, and we will certainly make good use of the donated Carestream Dental cone beam system to further our educational and patient care missions,” Phillip T. Marucha, D.M.D, Ph.D., dean of the OHSU School of Dentistry, said.
Whether students are studying general dentistry, implantology, oral and maxillofacial surgery, orthognathics or orthodontics, the medium- to large-field 3-D imaging and seven selectable fields of view offered by the donated CS 9300C system supports a wide variety of clinical applications for students. The system offers 2-D digital panoramic imaging, one-shot cephalometric imaging, and 3-D imaging technology at a dose up to 85% lower than panoramic imaging*.
The purchased RVG 6100 sensors offer high-image resolution so students are better able to make accurate diagnoses. The sensors are designed to streamline workflow with easy image capture, analysis and sharing.
The CS 9000 and CS 9000C imaging systems capture top-quality panoramic X-ray images quickly and easily and feature low-dose radiation exposure to ensure patient safety. The CS 9000C also includes a cephalometric arm. The high-image resolution delivered by this equipment is designed to improve students’ pretreatment assessments and operative success.
“Our goal is always to provide equipment that will advance the education of students while preparing them for a career beyond university,” Ed Shellard, D.M.D., chief commercial officer, Carestream Dental, said. “Each piece of equipment plays a role in shaping the next generation of young dentists.”
For more information about Carestream Dental and its innovative products, please call 1.800.944.6365 or visit
*Based on studies conducted by John B. Ludlow, University of North Carolina, School of Dentistry: Dosimetry of CS 8100 CBCT Unit and CS 9300 Low-Dose Protocol, August 2014; Dosimetry of the Carestream CS 9300 CBCT unit, June 2011. 85% reduction (3µSv) found in 5x5 cm adult exams; exact dose reduction varies based on field of view and ranges from 0% to 85%.
About Carestream Dental
Carestream Dental provides industry-leading imaging, CAD/CAM, software and practice management solutions for dental and oral health professionals. With more than 100 years of industry experience, Carestream Dental products are used by seven out of 10 practitioners globally and deliver more precise diagnoses, improved workflows and superior patient care. For more information or to contact a Carestream Dental representative, call 800.944.6365 or visit

About Carestream Health
Carestream is a worldwide provider of dental and medical imaging systems and IT solutions; X-ray imaging systems for non-destructive testing and advanced materials for the precision films and electronics markets. For more information about the company’s broad portfolio of products, solutions and services, please contact your Carestream representative, call 888.777.2072 or visit

Follow us online: Facebook IconTwitter IconLinkedIn IconYouTube IconGoogle+ IconBlog IconMedia Room Icon

Wednesday, April 22, 2015

What Causes Bad Breath?

An estimated 65 percent of Americans suffer from halitosis, or bad breath, according to the Washtenaw District Dental Society. But where does it come from? According to a TED-Ed video narrated by professor and bad breath researcher Mel Rosenberg, all comes down to the activity of bacteria in the mouth. "Bacteria in your mouth feed off of mucus, food remnants and dead tissue cells. In order to absorb nutrients through their cell membranes they must break down the organic matter into much smaller molecules," Rosenberg said.

Tuesday, April 21, 2015

Do Oral Health Conditions Adversely Impact Young Adults

Caries Res 2015;49:266-274


This study assessed the extent to which clinically measured oral health conditions, adjusted for sociodemographic and oral health behavior determinants, impact adversely on the oral health-related quality of life (OHRQoL) in a sample of Belgian young adults. The null hypothesis was that, among young adults, the oral health conditions would have no impact on their quality of life. The participants were 611 new patients aged 16-32 years seeking consultation at the Saint-Luc University Hospital in Brussels in 2010-2011. The patients (56.0% female) were examined for their oral health conditions and answered a validated questionnaire about sociodemographic and oral health behavior determinants in addition to questions about their OHRQoL. The abridged Oral Health Impact Profile-14 was used to assess the OHRQoL. Interexaminer reliability for caries was 0.86 (95% CI 0.84-0.89, nonweighted κ). The outcome was a high score on the OHRQoL (median split). Hierarchical logistic regression analysis showed that young adults with clinical absolute D1MFS scores between 9 and 16 (OR = 2.14, p = 0.031) and between 17 and 24 (OR = 3.10, p = 0.003) were significantly more likely to report a high impact on their quality of life than those with lower scores. Also, periodontal conditions compromised significantly (OR = 1.79, p = 0.011) the quality of life of young adults. In conclusion, this study identified oral health conditions with a significant adverse effect on the OHRQoL of young adults. However, the prevalence of young adults reporting impacts on at least 1 performance affected fairly often or very often was limited to 18.7% of the sample.

Monday, April 20, 2015

Effectiveness of and tooth sensitivity with at-home bleaching in smokers: A multicenter clinical trial.

See the practical implication at the bottom. MJ
J Am Dent Assoc. 2015 Apr;146(4):233-40. doi: 10.1016/j.adaj.2014.12.014.



The authors conducted a 2-center controlled clinical study to show the equivalence of at-home bleaching in smokers and nonsmokers at 1 week and 1 month and evaluate tooth sensitivity (TS).


The authors selected 60 smokers and 60 nonsmokers with central incisors of shade A2 or darker. The participants performed bleaching with 10% carbamide peroxide for 3 hours daily for 3 weeks. The authors evaluated the color by using a shade guide and a spectrophotometer before, during, and after bleaching (1 week and 1 month). Patients recorded TS by using a 0-4 scale and a visual analog scale. The authors used multivariable regression analysis to test factors associated with color change and TS (α = .05).


Smokers and nonsmokers showed significant color change statistically equivalent to within ± 2.0 units at 1 week after bleaching. Overall, color shade improved by 4.1 shade guide units (95% confidence interval [CI], 3.7-4.5) and 7.8 units of color change measured with the spectrophotometer (95% CI, 7.1-8.5) at 1 month. None of the factors affected the TS risk. TS absolute risk and intensity were similar between groups (P > .05), with an overall estimate of 47% (95% CI, 38-56%).


The immediate effectiveness of whitening- and bleaching-related TS were not affected by smoking.


Smoking did not affect the immediate color change (1 week). Effective whitening was achieved regardless of whether the patient was a smoker. However, this equivalence was not apparent 1 month after bleaching, with smokers having slightly darker teeth.

Friday, April 17, 2015

Accuracy Comparison of Implant Impression Techniques: A Systematic Review

Moreira, A. H. J., Rodrigues, N. F., Pinho, A. C. M., Fonseca, J. C. and Vilaça, J. L. (2015), Accuracy Comparison of Implant Impression Techniques: A Systematic Review. Clinical Implant Dentistry and Related Research. doi: 10.1111/cid.12310



Several studies link the seamless fit of implant-supported prosthesis with the accuracy of the dental impression technique obtained during acquisition. In addition, factors such as implant angulation and coping shape contribute to implant misfit.


The aim of this study was to identify the most accurate impression technique and factors affecting the impression accuracy.

Material and Methods

A systematic review of peer-reviewed literature was conducted analyzing articles published between 2009 and 2013. The following search terms were used: implant impression, impression accuracy, and implant misfit. A total of 417 articles were identified; 32 were selected for review.


All 32 selected studies refer to in vitro studies. Fourteen articles compare open and closed impression technique, 8 advocate the open technique, and 6 report similar results. Other 14 articles evaluate splinted and non-splinted techniques; all advocating the splinted technique. Polyether material usage was reported in nine; six studies tested vinyl polysiloxane and one study used irreversible hydrocolloid. Eight studies evaluated different copings designs. Intraoral optical devices were compared in four studies.


The most accurate results were achieved with two configurations: (1) the optical intraoral system with powder and (2) the open technique with splinted squared transfer copings, using polyether as impression material.

Thursday, April 16, 2015

The effect of gum chewing on sensitivity associated with in-office whitening procedures

Int J Dent Hygiene DOI: 10.1111/idh.12136 Henry RK, Carkin M. The effect of gum chewing on sensitivity associated with in-office whitening procedures.



Tooth sensitivity is the most common side effect of in-office tooth-whitening procedures. The purpose of this study was to determine whether chewing gum containing 0.6% casein phosphopeptide-amorphous calcium phosphate (CPP-ACP) before tooth whitening would reduce tooth sensitivity during an in-office whitening procedure.


Thirty participants were enrolled and randomized into three groups as follows: group 1 was instructed to not chew gum during the study period; group 2 chewed five pieces of gum (with 0.6% CPP-ACP) for 10 min each day 1 week before whitening; and group 3 chewed five pieces of gum (without CPP-ACP) for 10 min each day 1 week before whitening. All participants had their teeth whitened with a 30% hydrogen peroxide in-office whitening procedure. The participants' shades of teeth were evaluated with a spectrophotometer four times during the study: at the initial screening visit, immediately before whitening, immediately after whitening and 1 week after whitening. Participants' sensitivity levels were evaluated each time the shades were evaluated and additionally at 24 h after whitening using a 100-mm visual analogue scale.


Thirty participants were enrolled in the study. The average shade change was −2.27 (±2.07). The average sensitivity for all groups at visit 1 was 5.12 (±13.94). The average sensitivity for all groups after whitening was 19.81 (±13.95). There were significant differences in sensitivity between groups 2 and 3 (= 0.02), but neither group was significantly different from the control group (= 0.86, = 0.07).


Chewing gum before whitening, including gum with CPP-ACP, did not reduce sensitivity during in-office whitening procedures.