BACKGROUND: To practice efficiently, dentists need to consider the successful integration of technologies, which can benefit their practice of dentistry. The physical environment of the office must be developed to accommodate not only the appropriate placement of computer hardware and high-tech dental devices, but their interconnectivity, as well. CONCLUSION: Dentists need to make appropriate decisions regarding the types of technology they choose to integrate into their offices, and they need to understand how the technology will be installed and integrated. An office designed to optimize the use of technology will produce ongoing benefits for dentists, their staff members and their patients throughout the lives of their practices. PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: A dentist's practice must be planned to accommodate networks of systems hidden below floors, above ceilings and within walls, as well as to support and connect diverse technology items throughout the office. (+info)
Putting technology in place successfully.
(26/64)
BACKGROUND: This article discusses how to integrate clinical and administrative workstations into your dental practice from the planning phase to the implementation phase. The author discusses the costs that are associated with integrating technology, as well as the hardware components and configuration. He then discusses in greater detail the core clinical technologies and how they tie in together to facilitate building a cohesive digital patient record. CONCLUSIONS: There are no shortcuts to successfully integrating technology into a dental practice. A significant commitment of time, energy and money is a prerequisite to building a secure and reliable computer network that incorporates all clinical and administrative applications. PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: Technology is reinventing the world, and dentists need to keep pace with the people they serve. These new and not-so-new technologies will enhance dental services and productivity, which ultimately will raise the bar for the standard of care in dentistry. (+info)
OrthoCAD: digital models for a digital era.
(27/64)
This article describes the use of OrthoCAD--a digital study model capture, assessment and storage system. It is estimated that approximately 10% of orthodontists in USA and Canada now utilize digital study models, and improving technology is making it increasingly popular worldwide. The technology behind digital study models is briefly reviewed. The OrthoCAD system is described, and the advantages and disadvantages of using digital study models are highlighted. (+info)
Microhardness and Young's modulus of a bonding resin cured with different curing units.
(28/64)
This study evaluated the microhardness and Young's modulus of a photocurable bonding resin, Clearfil SE Bond (SE), cured with four curing units at different distances. The curing units used were: Candelux (Quartz-tungsten halogen), Lux-O-Max (Blue light emitting diode), Arc-light (Plasma-arc), and Rayblaze (Metal halide). Discs of bonding resin were prepared using vinyl molds and were photocured at the top surface with light tip at three different distances (contact, 2 and 4 mm). After 24 hours of storage in water at 37 degrees C, the specimens were sectioned into halves, embedded in epoxy resin, and polished. The microhardness and Young's modulus of this bonding resin were measured using a nanoindentation tester. Six specimens were prepared for each group. The data was statistically analyzed using two-way ANOVA test and Tukey multiple comparison test (p < 0.01). The microhardness of SE was affected by light source and distance, as was Young's modulus. Candelux and Rayblaze presented the highest hardness and Young's modulus results. Both properties presented high values when the curing unit tip was maintained in contact with the irradiated surface. Increasing the distance between the curing unit tip and the irradiated surface decreased the hardness and Young's modulus of SE. (+info)
Machinability evaluation of titanium alloys (Part 2)--Analyses of cutting force and spindle motor current.
(29/64)
To establish a method of determining the machinability of dental materials for CAD/CAM systems, the machinability of titanium, two titanium alloys (Ti-6Al-4V and Ti-6Al-7Nb), and free-cutting brass was evaluated through cutting force and spindle motor current. The metals were slotted using a milling machine and square end mills at four cutting conditions. Both the static and dynamic components of the cutting force represented well the machinability of the metals tested: the machinability of Ti-6Al-4V and Ti-6Al-7Nb was worse than that of titanium, while that of free-cutting brass was better. On the other hand, the results indicated that the spindle motor current was not sensitive enough to detect the material difference among the titanium and its alloys. (+info)
A comparison of tungsten-quartz-halogen, plasma arc and light-emitting diode light sources for the polymerization of an orthodontic adhesive.
(30/64)
This study investigated whether there were differences between the debond stress and adhesive remnant index (ARI) of an adhesive cured with three different orthodontic light sources. Sixty sound premolar teeth were divided into three groups of 20. A standard pre-adjusted edgewise premolar bracket (Victory Series) was bonded to each tooth using a light-cured orthodontic adhesive, Transbond X. Group 1 (control) specimens were cured with an Ortholux XT (tungsten-quartz-halogen bulb) light for 20 seconds, group 2 with an Ortho lite (plasma arc) for 6 seconds and group 3 with an Ortholux LED light-emitting diode for 10 seconds. The specimens were debonded 24 hours later using a universal mechanical testing machine, operating at a crosshead speed of 0.5 mm minute(-1). The Weibull modulus and a Logrank test showed no statistically significant differences between the three groups for debond stress. The ARI was assessed at x10 magnification. The ARI scores for group 2 were significantly different (P < 0.01) from those of groups 1 and 3 (between which there was no significant difference). For group 2 there was a greater tendency for failure to occur at the adhesive/tooth interface than for the other two groups. There appears to be no reason why any of the three types of light source cannot be used in orthodontics. Polymerization, as effective as that produced by conventional bulb light sources, was obtained with the short exposure times recommended for the plasma arc or light-emitting diode sources. (+info)
Influence of composite restorative materials and light-curing units on diametrical tensile strength.
(31/64)
The aim of this study was to evaluate the diametrical tensile strength (DTS) of three light-curing photo-activated composites with two different light curing units (LCU). Three types of dental restorative composites were used in this study: micro filled A110 (3M Espe); P60 (3M Espe) for posterior restorations, and micro-hybrid Charisma (Heraeus-Kulzer). The two LCUs were: halogen light (HAL) (Degulux, Degussa) and blue light emitting diode (LED) (Ultrablue, DMC). Resin composite specimens were inserted incrementally into a Teflon split mold measuring 3 mm in depth and 6 mm in internal diameter, and cured using either LCU (n = 10). Specimens were placed into a dark bottle containing distilled water at 37 degrees C for 7 days. DTS tests were performed in a Universal Testing Machine (0.5 mm/min). Data were submitted to two-way ANOVA and Tukey's test. Results were (MPa): A110/HAL: 276.50 +/- 62.94a; A110/LED: 306.01 +/- 65.16a; P60/HAL: 568.29 +/- 60.77b and P60/LED: 543.01 +/- 83.65b; Charisma/HAL: 430.94 +/- 67.28c; Charisma/LED: 435.52 +/- 105.12c. Results suggested that no significant difference in DTS was obtained with LCUs for the same composite. However, resin composite restorative materials presented different DTS. (+info)
Effect of reduced exposure times on the microhardness of 10 resin composites cured by high-power LED and QTH curing lights.
(32/64)
PURPOSE: To compare the effect of reduced exposure times on the microhardness of resin composites cured with a "second-generation" light-emitting diode (LED) curing light and a quartz-tungsten-halogen (QTH) curing light. METHODS: Ten composites were cured with a LED curing light for 50% of the manufacturers" recommended exposure time or a QTH light at the high power setting for 50% of the recommended time or on the medium power setting for 100% of the recommended time. The composites were packed into Class I preparations in extracted human molar teeth and cured at distances of 2 or 9 mm from the light guide. The moulds were separated, and the Knoop microhardness of the composites was measured down to 3.5 mm from the surface. RESULTS: The LED light delivered the greatest irradiance at 0 and 2 mm, whereas the QTH light on the standard (high power) setting delivered the highest irradiance at 9 mm. According to distribution-free multiple comparisons of the hardness values, at 2 mm from the light guide the LED light (50% exposure time) was ranked better than or equivalent to the QTH light on the high power setting (50% exposure time) or on the medium power setting (100% exposure time). At 9 mm, the LED light was ranked better than or equivalent to the QTH light (both settings) to a depth of 1.5 mm, beyond which composites irradiated by the LED light were softer (p < 0.01). At both distances, the QTH light operated on the high power setting for 50% of the recommended exposure time produced composites that were as hard as when they were exposed on the medium power setting for 100% of the recommended exposure time. CONCLUSIONS: The ability to reduce exposure times with high-power LED or QTH lights may improve clinical time management. (+info)