The Experts below are selected from a list of 6318 Experts worldwide ranked by ideXlab platform

Mi Cong - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.

  • Study and drawing of standard growth curve on body weitht of Urumqi Hans adolescent for Orthodontics
    Journal of Xinjiang Medical University, 2003
    Co-Authors: Mi Cong
    Abstract:

    Objective: To study and trace the standard growth curve of body weight of Urumqi Han's adolescent for Orthodontic Diagnosis and treatment planning. Methods: Statistical data were surveyed in 1995, which were obtained from subjects consisting of 5280 students aged from seven to eighteen years old in the city of Urumqi. Results: The mean values and the annual increment of body weight and the ages of the pubertal growth periods were analysed. The annual body weight increment peak was 13 years for girls and 14 years for boys. Under the pubertal growth periods, the annual increment of body weight was similar for both sexes. Above the pubertal growth periods, the annual increment of body weight of girls was slower than that of boys. Conclusions: The new standard growth curve on body weight plays an important role in the Orthodontic Diagnosis and treatment planning.

Jan Paul Siebert - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.

Anne Marie Kuijpersjagtman - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.

  • records needed for Orthodontic Diagnosis and treatment planning a systematic review
    PLOS ONE, 2013
    Co-Authors: Robine J Rischen, Hero K Breuning, Ewald M Bronkhorst, Anne Marie Kuijpersjagtman
    Abstract:

    BACKGROUND: Traditionally, dental models, facial and intra-oral photographs and a set of two-dimensional radiographs are used for Orthodontic Diagnosis and treatment planning. As evidence is lacking, the discussion is ongoing which specific records are needed for the process of making an Orthodontic treatment plan. OBJECTIVE: To estimate the contribution and importance of different diagnostic records for making an Orthodontic Diagnosis and treatment plan. DATA SOURCES: An electronic search in PubMed (1948-July 2012), EMBASE Excerpta Medica (1980-July 2012), CINAHL (1982-July 2012), Web of Science (1945-July 2012), Scopus (1996-July 2012), and Cochrane Library (1993-July 2012) was performed. Additionally, a hand search of the reference lists of included studies was performed to identify potentially eligible studies. There was no language restriction. STUDY SELECTION: THE PATIENT, INTERVENTION, COMPARATOR, OUTCOME (PICO) QUESTION FORMULATED FOR THIS STUDY WAS AS FOLLOWS: for patients who need Orthodontic treatment (P), will the use of record set X (I) compared with record set Y (C) change the treatment plan (O)? Only primary publications were included. DATA EXTRACTION: Independent extraction of data and quality assessment was performed by two observers. RESULTS: Of the 1041 publications retrieved, 17 met the inclusion criteria. Of these, 4 studies were of high quality. Because of the limited number of high quality studies and the differences in study designs, patient characteristics, and reference standard or index test, a meta-analysis was not possible. CONCLUSION: Cephalograms are not routinely needed for Orthodontic treatment planning in Class II malocclusions, digital models can be used to replace plaster casts, and cone-beam computed tomography radiographs can be indicated for impacted canines. Based on the findings of this review, the minimum record set required for Orthodontic Diagnosis and treatment planning could not be defined. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42012002365.

Keith Isaacson - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.

  • cone beam ct and Orthodontic Diagnosis a personal view
    Journal of Orthodontics, 2013
    Co-Authors: Keith Isaacson
    Abstract:

    There are two fundamental questions to be answered when considering the use of CBCT imaging and the generation of a cephalometric radiograph: (1) what are the indications for taking a cephalometric radiograph and (2) when is a CBCT image required for an Orthodontic patient? Historically, cephalometric radiographs have been used for treatment planning, monitoring the progress of treatment and for research. For the experienced clinician, there are three aspects of treatment planning that require the use of a cephalometric radiograph: (1) when significant changes in the incisor relationship are required; (2) in borderline cases, to help determine the best treatment method (for example, whether extractions are indicated); (3) when jaw position is going to be altered with orthognathic surgery. The selection and use of cephalometric radiography is fully covered in current BOS guidelines on the clinical use of radiographs. Cephalometric radiographs have also been extremely valuable in the past as a research tool. Our understanding of facial growth, action of appliances, treatment outcome and the extraction versus non-extraction debate have all been advanced by many studies that have used these radiographs. Indeed, before the introduction of the IRMER regulations, this author used cephalometric radiographs taken specifically for research purposes. However, the current IRMER regulations have had a significant impact on the use of cephalometrics for research. As a cephalometric image at the completion of treatment will rarely benefit the individual patient, any prospective study requiring one might be difficult to justify to an ethics committee. CBCT has been described by some as ‘an answer in search of a question’. The European Union Sedentextct guidelines on the use of CBCT contain some important statements: ‘CBCT should only be used when the question for which the imaging is required cannot be answered adequately by lower dose conventional (traditional) radiography’..... ‘Large volume CBCT should not be used routinely for Orthodontic Diagnosis’ and .....’Health professionals (who) change their practice to adopt a more expensive diagnostic technique, particularly when there are radiation–related risks in a predominately young patient age group......the onus is on them......to demonstrate significant improvement in patient outcomes’. In arguing for the routine use of CBCT in Orthodontic assessment, Larson has stated ‘If full mouth intraoral radiographs are taken to assess the periodontal status of adults CBCT imaging typically reduces the patient dose’ However, it should be borne in mind that this ‘advantage’ of a lower dose does not really apply to our younger patients who rarely need a radiographic periodontal assessment of their entire dentition (and incidentally, the bony detail is much less well defined in the 3D image than in an intraoral image). The current Sedentex-ct guidelines also provide references to about 50 papers relating to the accuracy of CBCT. Amongst these, is the work by Ludlow et al who used images from patients who had both CBCT and true cephalometric radiographs. They comment: ‘until we have randomized clinical trials demonstrating improved treatment efficiency......it will be hard to justify the expense and additional risk of using these imaging devices routinely.’ Whilst such trials might be permitted in the USA, they would not be possible in Europe. Indeed, Damstra et al carried out a study on dry skulls because it would be ‘unethical to expose patients to the additional radiation of a CBCT scan after a lateral cephalogram.’ The most common clinical Orthodontic problem, which may require CBCT (usually subsequent to conventional images) is for clarification of the location of misplaced teeth (typically canines and supernumeraries) and to eliminate possible damage to the apices of adjacent teeth. However, in the UK, small volume scans (which do not include the sella turcica and therefore the pituitary gland) are normally used for such investigations. The use of CBCT in orthognathic surgery has been described and the many problems associated with its use illustrated. In particular, the soft tissues are not shown by a CBCT and a second scan is needed to obtain an accurate image of the dentition. It has been suggested that the use of CBCT images for Journal of Orthodontics, Vol. 40, 2013, 3–4

  • Cone beam CT and Orthodontic Diagnosis – a personal view
    Journal of orthodontics, 2013
    Co-Authors: Keith Isaacson
    Abstract:

    There are two fundamental questions to be answered when considering the use of CBCT imaging and the generation of a cephalometric radiograph: (1) what are the indications for taking a cephalometric radiograph and (2) when is a CBCT image required for an Orthodontic patient? Historically, cephalometric radiographs have been used for treatment planning, monitoring the progress of treatment and for research. For the experienced clinician, there are three aspects of treatment planning that require the use of a cephalometric radiograph: (1) when significant changes in the incisor relationship are required; (2) in borderline cases, to help determine the best treatment method (for example, whether extractions are indicated); (3) when jaw position is going to be altered with orthognathic surgery. The selection and use of cephalometric radiography is fully covered in current BOS guidelines on the clinical use of radiographs. Cephalometric radiographs have also been extremely valuable in the past as a research tool. Our understanding of facial growth, action of appliances, treatment outcome and the extraction versus non-extraction debate have all been advanced by many studies that have used these radiographs. Indeed, before the introduction of the IRMER regulations, this author used cephalometric radiographs taken specifically for research purposes. However, the current IRMER regulations have had a significant impact on the use of cephalometrics for research. As a cephalometric image at the completion of treatment will rarely benefit the individual patient, any prospective study requiring one might be difficult to justify to an ethics committee. CBCT has been described by some as ‘an answer in search of a question’. The European Union Sedentextct guidelines on the use of CBCT contain some important statements: ‘CBCT should only be used when the question for which the imaging is required cannot be answered adequately by lower dose conventional (traditional) radiography’..... ‘Large volume CBCT should not be used routinely for Orthodontic Diagnosis’ and .....’Health professionals (who) change their practice to adopt a more expensive diagnostic technique, particularly when there are radiation–related risks in a predominately young patient age group......the onus is on them......to demonstrate significant improvement in patient outcomes’. In arguing for the routine use of CBCT in Orthodontic assessment, Larson has stated ‘If full mouth intraoral radiographs are taken to assess the periodontal status of adults CBCT imaging typically reduces the patient dose’ However, it should be borne in mind that this ‘advantage’ of a lower dose does not really apply to our younger patients who rarely need a radiographic periodontal assessment of their entire dentition (and incidentally, the bony detail is much less well defined in the 3D image than in an intraoral image). The current Sedentex-ct guidelines also provide references to about 50 papers relating to the accuracy of CBCT. Amongst these, is the work by Ludlow et al who used images from patients who had both CBCT and true cephalometric radiographs. They comment: ‘until we have randomized clinical trials demonstrating improved treatment efficiency......it will be hard to justify the expense and additional risk of using these imaging devices routinely.’ Whilst such trials might be permitted in the USA, they would not be possible in Europe. Indeed, Damstra et al carried out a study on dry skulls because it would be ‘unethical to expose patients to the additional radiation of a CBCT scan after a lateral cephalogram.’ The most common clinical Orthodontic problem, which may require CBCT (usually subsequent to conventional images) is for clarification of the location of misplaced teeth (typically canines and supernumeraries) and to eliminate possible damage to the apices of adjacent teeth. However, in the UK, small volume scans (which do not include the sella turcica and therefore the pituitary gland) are normally used for such investigations. The use of CBCT in orthognathic surgery has been described and the many problems associated with its use illustrated. In particular, the soft tissues are not shown by a CBCT and a second scan is needed to obtain an accurate image of the dentition. It has been suggested that the use of CBCT images for Journal of Orthodontics, Vol. 40, 2013, 3–4

Mohammad Y Hajeer - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.