An in-vivo study on the difference between principal and cardiac strains

2009 ◽  
Author(s):  
Daniel Barbosa ◽  
Piet Claus ◽  
Hon Fai Choi ◽  
Krasimira Hristova ◽  
Dirk Loeckx ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
In Vivo Study ◽  
The Difference

scholarly journals Learning curve of digital intraoral scanning – an in vivo study

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ivett Róth ◽  
Alexandra Czigola ◽  
Gellért Levente Joós-Kovács ◽  
Magdolna Dalos ◽  
Péter Hermann ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Learning Curve ◽  
Dental Students ◽  
First Impressions ◽  
In Vivo Study ◽  
Intraoral Scanner ◽  
Scanning Time ◽  
Intraoral Scanning ◽  
Digital Impressions ◽  
The Difference

Abstract Background: The spread of digital technology in dentistry poses new challenges and goals for dentists. The aim of the present in vivo study was to determine the learning curve of intraoral scanning described by (1) scanning time and (2) image number (count of images made by intraoral scanner during scanning process). Methods: Ten dental students of Semmelweis University, took part in the study. Dental students took digital study impressions using 3Shape Trios 3® (3Shape, Copenhagen, Denmark) intraoral scanning device. Each student took 10 digital impressions on volunteers (for standardization the first and the last volunteers was the same for each student). The inclusion criteria of volunteers were full dentition (except missing third molar) and no prosthetic- restorative treatment. Digital impression taking was preceded by a lecture consisting of two parts: theoretical education and practical training. Digital impressions were taken of the upper and lower arches, and the bite was recorded according to the manufacturer's instructions. Total scanning time and image number of intraoral scanning were recorded. Results: The difference of scanning time between the first and the tenth digital impressions was significant (p=0.007). The average scanning time of first impressions was 23 min 9 sec, for tenth impressions it was 15 min 28 sec. The difference between scanning time of the first and the tenth impressions was 7 min 41 sec. The average image number of the first impressions was 1964.5, for the tenth impressions it was 1468.6. The difference between number of images of the first and the tenth impressions was 495,9. The curve of image number show decreasing tendency first, then has a trough around the sixth measurement, and rises. Conclusion: Based on our results there was association between the sequential number of measurements and the outcome variables. The scanning time decreased because of the repetitive use of intraoral scanner. The image number first showed decreasing tendency and after sixth measurement it increased, there is no consistent decline in mean scanning picture. Scanning time decreased because the students move the scanning tip faster as result of practice. Shorter scanning times are accompanied by poorer coverage quality, the operator has to correct by adding extra images represented by the curve of image numbers which turning into increasing tendency after the sixth measurement. Trial registration: The permission for this study was given by the University Ethics Committee of Semmelweis University (SE TUKEB number: 61/2016).

Assessment of Acidogenicity of Commercially Available Biscuits on Salivary pH - An in vivo Study

2020 ◽  
pp. 139-147
Author(s):  
B. Vivek Babu ◽  
Jayashri Prabakar
Keyword(s):  
Simple Random Sampling ◽  
In Vivo Study ◽  
Data Set ◽  
Group I ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
Salivary Ph ◽  
The Difference ◽  
Group 2 ◽  
Inorganic Molecules

Saliva is a complex secretion consisting of 99% of water and remaining 1% of organic and inorganic molecules. Sucrose and starches are the predominant dietary carbohydrates in modern societies. Among all the foods consumed by children, chocolates and biscuits are the most common. Therefore this present in vivo study was conducted to assess the acidogenic effect of commercially available biscuits on salivary pH among 10 to 15 years old children. Study Design used in the study was In Vivo clinical study (Pilot Trail). The population collected in the survey was children between the age group of 10 - 15 years old children. 4 Groups were considered and 10 in each group. Group 1: Hide and Seek, Group 2: Good Day, Group 3: Dream and Cream, Group 4: Oreo. Sampling method used in the study was conducted as simple random sampling. Ethical approval of the study was obtained from Saveetha Institutional Review Board. Informed consent of the children were obtained from the parents. Descriptive statistics were expressed by means of mean and standard deviation. Shapiro Wilks test used to test the normality of the data set. Kruskal Wallis test was used to find the difference in mean Salivary pH between the groups and within the groups at Baseline, Immediate and after 15 min, 30 mins. A statistically significant difference in mean Salivary pH was observed between the groups at Immediate and after 30 mins (p<0.05). The mean Salivary pH was significantly dropped in Oreo, Dream cream and Hide & Seek groups at various time-periods. Based on the results of the present study, it can be concluded that maximum drop in mean salivary pH was observed in Group IV followed by Group II and Group I. It was observed that in all the groups, the pH gradually got back to near normal levels due to the buffering mechanism of saliva.

scholarly journals Learning curve of digital intraoral scanning – an in vivo study

2020 ◽  
Vol 20 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Ivett Róth ◽  
Alexandra Czigola ◽  
Gellért Levente Joós-Kovács ◽  
Magdolna Dalos ◽  
Péter Hermann ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Learning Curve ◽  
Dental Students ◽  
First Impressions ◽  
In Vivo Study ◽  
Practical Training ◽  
Scanning Time ◽  
Intraoral Scanning ◽  
Digital Impressions ◽  
The Difference

Abstract Background The spread of digital technology in dentistry poses new challenges and sets new goals for dentists. The aim of the present in vivo study was to determine the learning curve of intraoral scanning described by (1) scanning time and (2) image number (count of images created by intraoral scanner during the scanning process). Methods Ten dental students of Semmelweis University took part in the study. Dental students took digital study impressions using a 3Shape Trios 3® (3Shape, Copenhagen, Denmark) intraoral scanning device. Each student took 10 digital impressions on volunteers. Volunteer inclusion criteria included full dentition (except for missing third molars) and no prosthetic/restorative treatment. Digital impression taking was preceded by tuition consisting of both theoretical education and practical training. Digital impressions were taken of the upper and lower arches, and the bite was recorded according to the manufacturer's instructions. Total scanning times and image numbers were recorded. Results The difference in scanning time between the first and the tenth digital impressions was significant (p = 0.007). The average scanning time for the first impressions was 23 min 9 s; for the tenth impressions, it was 15 min 28 s. The difference between the scanning times of the first and the tenth procedures was 7 min 41 s. The average image count for the first impressions was 1964.5; for the tenth impressions, it was 1468.6. The image count difference between the first and the tenth procedures was 495.9. The image count versus sequential number of measurement curve shows an initial decreasing tendency followed by a trough around the sixth measurement and a final increasing phase. Conclusion Our results indicate an association between the sequential number of measurements and the outcome variables. The drop in scanning time is probably explained by a practice effect of repeated use, i.e. the students learned to move the scanning tip faster. The image count first showed a decreasing tendency, and after the sixth measurement, it increased; there was no consistent decline in mean scan count. Shorter scanning times are associated with poorer coverage quality, with the operator needing to make corrections by adding extra images; this manifests as the time function of image counts taking an increase after the sixth measurement.

scholarly journals Learning curve of digital intraoral scanning – an in vivo study

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ivett Róth ◽  
Alexandra Czigola ◽  
Gellért Levente Joós-Kovács ◽  
Magdolna Dalos ◽  
Péter Hermann ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Learning Curve ◽  
Dental Students ◽  
First Impressions ◽  
In Vivo Study ◽  
Practical Training ◽  
Scanning Time ◽  
Intraoral Scanning ◽  
Digital Impressions ◽  
The Difference

Abstract Background: The spread of digital technology in dentistry poses new challenges and sets new goals for dentists. The aim of the present in vivo study was to determine the learning curve of intraoral scanning described by (1) scanning time and (2) image number (count of images created by intraoral scanner during the scanning process).Methods: Ten dental students of Semmelweis University took part in the study. Dental students took digital study impressions using a 3Shape Trios 3® (3Shape, Copenhagen, Denmark) intraoral scanning device. Each student took 10 digital impressions on volunteers. Volunteer inclusion criteria included full dentition (except for missing third molars) and no prosthetic/restorative treatment. Digital impression taking was preceded by tuition consisting of both theoretical education and practical training. Digital impressions were taken of the upper and lower arches, and the bite was recorded according to the manufacturer's instructions. Total scanning times and image numbers were recorded.Results: The difference in scanning time between the first and the tenth digital impressions was significant (p=0.007). The average scanning time for the first impressions was 23 min 9 sec; for the tenth impressions, it was 15 min 28 sec. The difference between the scanning times of the first and the tenth procedures was 7 min 41 sec. The average image count for the first impressions was 1964.5; for the tenth impressions, it was 1468.6. The image count difference between the first and the tenth procedures was 495.9. The image count versus sequential number of measurement curve shows an initial decreasing tendency followed by a trough around the sixth measurement and a final increasing phase.Conclusion: Our results indicate an association between the sequential number of measurements and the outcome variables. The drop in scanning time is probably explained by a practice effect of repeated use, i.e. the students learned to move the scanning tip faster. The image count first showed a decreasing tendency, and after the sixth measurement, it increased; there was no consistent decline in mean scan count. Shorter scanning times are associated with poorer coverage quality, with the operator needing to make corrections by adding extra images; this manifests as the time function of image counts taking an increase after the sixth measurement.Trial registration: This study was approved by the University Ethics Committee of Semmelweis University (SE TUKEB number: 61/2016).

scholarly journals Learning curve of digital intraoral scanning – an in vivo study

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ivett Róth ◽  
Alexandra Czigola ◽  
Gellért Levente Joós-Kovács ◽  
Magdolna Dalos ◽  
Péter Hermann ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Learning Curve ◽  
Dental Students ◽  
First Impressions ◽  
In Vivo Study ◽  
Practical Training ◽  
Scanning Time ◽  
Intraoral Scanning ◽  
Digital Impressions ◽  
The Difference

Abstract Background: The spread of digital technology in dentistry poses new challenges and sets new goals for dentists. The aim of the present in vivo study was to determine the learning curve of intraoral scanning described by (1) scanning time and (2) image number (count of images created by intraoral scanner during the scanning process).Methods: Ten dental students of Semmelweis University took part in the study. Dental students took digital study impressions using a 3Shape Trios 3® (3Shape, Copenhagen, Denmark) intraoral scanning device. Each student took 10 digital impressions on volunteers. Volunteer inclusion criteria included full dentition (except for missing third molars) and no prosthetic/restorative treatment. Digital impression taking was preceded by tuition consisting of both theoretical education and practical training. Digital impressions were taken of the upper and lower arches, and the bite was recorded according to the manufacturer's instructions. Total scanning times and image numbers were recorded.Results: The difference in scanning time between the first and the tenth digital impressions was significant (p=0.007). The average scanning time for the first impressions was 23 min 9 sec; for the tenth impressions, it was 15 min 28 sec. The difference between the scanning times of the first and the tenth procedures was 7 min 41 sec. The average image count for the first impressions was 1964.5; for the tenth impressions, it was 1468.6. The image count difference between the first and the tenth procedures was 495.9. The image count versus sequential number of measurement curve shows an initial decreasing tendency followed by a trough around the sixth measurement and a final increasing phase.Conclusion: Our results indicate an association between the sequential number of measurements and the outcome variables. The drop in scanning time is probably explained by a practice effect of repeated use, i.e. the students learned to move the scanning tip faster. The image count first showed a decreasing tendency, and after the sixth measurement, it increased; there was no consistent decline in mean scan count. Shorter scanning times are associated with poorer coverage quality, with the operator needing to make corrections by adding extra images; this manifests as the time function of image counts taking an increase after the sixth measurement.

scholarly journals Learning curve of digital intraoral scanning – an in vivo study

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ivett Róth ◽  
Alexandra Czigola ◽  
Gellért Levente Joós-Kovács ◽  
Magdolna Dalos ◽  
Péter Hermann ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Learning Curve ◽  
Dental Students ◽  
First Impressions ◽  
In Vivo Study ◽  
Digital Impression ◽  
Scanning Time ◽  
Intraoral Scanning ◽  
Digital Impressions ◽  
The Difference

Abstract Background The spread of digital technology in dentistry poses new challenges and goals for dentists. It is important to involve new methods and devices in university education. The aim of the present in vivo study was to determine the learning curve of IOS described by (1) scanning time and (2) image number (count of images made by intraoral scanner during scanning process).Methods Ten dental students of Semmelweis University took part in the study. Dental students took digital study impressions using 3Shape Trios 3® (Copenhagen, Denmark) IOS device. Each student took 10 digital impressions on volunteers (for standardization the first and the last patients was the same for each student). The inclusion criteria of patients were full dentition (except missing third molar) and no prosthetic- restorative treatment. Digital impression taking was preceded by a lecture consisting of two parts: education and training. For standardization, the scanning device was calibrated before impression taking, followed by the registration of patient data. Digital impressions were taken of the upper and lower arches, and the bite was recorded according to the manufacturer's instructions. Total scanning time and image number of intraoral scanning were recorded.Results The difference of scanning time between the first and the tenth digital impressions was significant (p=0.007). The average scanning time of first impressions was 23min 9sec, for tenth impressions it was 15min 28sec. The difference between scanning time of the first and the tenth impressions was 7min 41sec. The average image number of the first impressions was 1964.5, for the tenth impressions it was 1468.6. The difference between number of images of the first and the tenth impressions was 495,9. The curve of image number show decreasing tendency first, then has a trough around the sixth measurement, and rises.Conclusion The learning curve of IOS can be described with scanning time and image number of digital impression. Scanning time decreases as result of practice. Shorter scanning times are accompanied by poorer coverage quality, the operator has to correct by adding extra images represented by the curve of image numbers which turning into increasing tendency after the sixth measurement.Trial registration: The permission for this study was given by the University Ethics Committee of Semmelweis University (SE TUKEB number: 61/2016).

In Vitro and in Vivo Grafting of Xeno Pig Fetal Liver Fragments Using Ultrafiltration Membrane

1998 ◽  
Vol 7 (4) ◽  
pp. 417-420 ◽  
Author(s):  
Nobuyuki Kanai ◽  
Naokatsu Morita ◽  
Batmunkh Munkhbat ◽  
Balgansuren Gansuvd ◽  
Masao Hagihara ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Fetal Liver ◽  
In Vitro Study ◽  
In Vivo Study ◽  
Histological Structure ◽  
Host Immune System ◽  
Protective Effects ◽  
The Difference ◽  
Liver Fragments

Transplantation of xeno fetal liver fragments (FLF) could be an alternative or supplementary therapy for acute and chronic liver failure not resolved by routine medical therapies. However, the xenografts themselves are rejected by the host immune system. To overcome these problems, immunoisolate capsules with various cutoff points, from 50,000 (YM30) to 500,000 (ZM500) were tested for their protective effects on FLF graft survival. In an in vitro study, the capsule with the smallest cutoff size (YM30) had an excellent protective effect on the grafts it contained, and showed the lowest GOT values in the culture supernatant and the normal histological structure. In an in vivo study using rats, the same capsule enabled a FLF graft to survive as long as 21 days, even with severe IgG deposition on and within the graft. In another in vivo study, which used beagle dog, however, it did not improve the natural course of survival of the graft, which had totally degenerated by day 7. In conclusion, 1) Immunocapsules, especially those with the smallest cutoff values, impeded the infiltration of the (xeno) humoral attacking factor, but the blocking effect was not complete, as shown by the immunoglobulin (IgG) deposit on the grafts they contained. 2) The FLFs with capsules survived longer than those without capsules—only in rats, not in beagles. This difference may be attributable to the difference of the extent of humoral or nutritional response to the xenografts.

scholarly journals Learning curve of digital intraoral scanning – an in vivo study

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ivett Róth ◽  
Alexandra Czigola ◽  
Gellért Levente Joós-Kovács ◽  
Magdolna Dalos ◽  
Péter Hermann ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Learning Curve ◽  
Dental Students ◽  
First Impressions ◽  
In Vivo Study ◽  
Digital Impression ◽  
Scanning Time ◽  
Intraoral Scanning ◽  
Digital Impressions ◽  
The Difference

Abstract Background: The spread of digital technology in dentistry poses new challenges and goals for dentists. It is important to involve new methods and devices in university education. The aim of the present in vivo study was to determine the learning curve of IOS described by (1) scanning time and (2) image number (count of images made by intraoral scanner during scanning process). Methods: Ten dental students of Semmelweis University took part in the study. Dental students took digital study impressions using 3Shape Trios 3® (Copenhagen, Denmark) IOS device. Each student took 10 digital impressions on volunteers (for standardization the first and the last patients was the same for each student). The inclusion criteria of patients were full dentition (except missing third molar) and no prosthetic- restorative treatment. Digital impression taking was preceded by a lecture consisting of two parts: education and training. For standardization, the scanning device was calibrated before impression taking, followed by the registration of patient data. Digital impressions were taken of the upper and lower arches, and the bite was recorded according to the manufacturer's instructions. Total scanning time and image number of intraoral scanning were recorded. Results: The difference of scanning time between the first and the tenth digital impressions was significant (p=0.007). The average scanning time of first impressions was 23min 9sec, for tenth impressions it was 15min 28sec. The difference between scanning time of the first and the tenth impressions was 7min 41sec. The average image number of the first impressions was 1964.5, for the tenth impressions it was 1468.6. The difference between number of images of the first and the tenth impressions was 495,9. The curve of image number show decreasing tendency first, then has a trough around the sixth measurement, and rises. Conclusion: The learning curve of IOS can be described with scanning time and image number of digital impression. Scanning time decreases as result of practice. Shorter scanning times are accompanied by poorer coverage quality, the operator has to correct by adding extra images represented by the curve of image numbers which turning into increasing tendency after the sixth measurement.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document