Axial Relationship Between Dental Implants and Teeth/Implants: A Radiographic Study

2014 ◽  
Vol 40 (4) ◽  
pp. 425-431 ◽  
Author(s):  
Eli E Machtei ◽  
Orit Oettinger-Barak ◽  
Jacob Horwitz

The relationship of dental implants with neighboring teeth will affect both occlusal relationship and distribution of forces; thus, the purpose of this study was to examine implants' axial relationship with adjacent and opposing teeth/implants. Data of dental implants patients was retrieved. Panoramic X rays were digitized. Computer-based software was used to measure the angular relationship between the implants and adjacent/opposing teeth and implants. Data was further sorted by the mode of placement and implants position. 50 patients (219 implants) were included. Mean angle to adjacent tooth/implant was 178.71° ± 9.18° (range 129.7°–206°). Implants were more parallel to adjacent teeth (180.99° ± 1.06°) than to adjacent implants (176.32° ± 0.54°; P = .0001). Mean angular relationship to opposite tooth was 167.88° ± 8.92° (range 137.7°–179.8°). Implants that were placed freehand or with positional guide had similar intra-arch relationship (178.22° and 178.81°, respectively) and similar inter-arch angulations (164.46° and 167.74°). Molars had greater deviation of the angular relationship (175.54°) compared to premolars (181.62°) and incisors (180.55°, P = .0001). Implants placed in the maxilla had smaller axial deviation compared to implants in the mandible (180.41° ± 0.64 vs 177.14° ± 1.02; P = .0081). Good axial relationship may be obtained in most implants placed by an experienced clinician, even when placed freehand. The mandibular posterior region is more prone to axial deviation and as such requires special attention.

2019 ◽  
Vol 26 (2) ◽  
pp. 911-924
Author(s):  
Mark J Rapoport ◽  
Carla Zucchero Sarracini ◽  
Benoit M Mulsant ◽  
Dallas P Seitz ◽  
Frank Molnar ◽  
...  

Clinicians face challenges in deciding which older patients with dementia to report to transportation administrators. This study used a qualitative thematic analysis to understand the utility and limitations of implementing a computer-based Driving in Dementia Decision Tool in clinical practice. Thirteen physicians and eight nurse practitioners participated in an interview to discuss their experience using the tool. While many participants felt the tool provided a useful ‘virtual second opinion’, specialist physicians felt that the tool did not add value to their clinical practice. Barriers to using the Driving in Dementia Decision Tool included lack of integration with electronic medical records and inability to capture certain contextual nuances. Opinions varied about the impact of the tool on the relationship of clinicians with patients and their families. The Driving in Dementia Decision Tool was judged most useful by nurse practitioners and least useful by specialist physicians. This work highlights the importance of tailoring knowledge translation interventions to particular practices.


1975 ◽  
Vol 3 (4) ◽  
pp. 299-311 ◽  
Author(s):  
A. M. S. Black ◽  
G. A. Harrison

Difficulties in positioning Robertshaw tubes have been reviewed in a retrospective and a prospective series. Pre-operative chest X-rays did not help in predicting difficulties. The performance of the Robertshaw tube was carefully recorded for each malposition in the prospective series, and the relationship of the malplaced tube to the tracheobronchial tree was reconstructed. This exercise allowed a more precise definition of the dangers of malpositions and formulation of procedure to minimize their incidence.


Author(s):  
Mohammad Reza Ebrahimi ◽  
Seyyed Morteza Hashemi Toroujeni ◽  
Vahide Shahbazi

Abstract—Score equivalency of two Computer-Based Testing (henceforth CBT) and Paper-and-Pencil-Based Testing (henceforth PBT) versions has turned into a controversial issue during the last decade in Iran. The comparability of mean scores obtained from two CBT and PBT formats of test should be investigated to see if test takers’ testing performance is influenced by the effects of testing administration mode. This research was conducted to examine score equivalency across modes as well as the relationship of gender, and testing mode preference with test takers’ performance on computerized testing. The information of testing mode preference and attitudes towards CBT and its features was supported by a focus group interview. Findings indicated that the scores of test takers were not different in both modes and there was no statistically significant relationship between moderator above variables and CBT performance.


1986 ◽  
Vol 16 (3) ◽  
pp. 267-272 ◽  
Author(s):  
Carolena L. Smith

The purpose of this study was to evaluate the relationship of student attitude using graphic enhanced versus nongraphic enhanced computer-based instruction. Four intact groups were randomly assigned treatment. Two groups received graphic instruction and two groups received nongraphic computer-based instruction. An attitude questionnaire was administered to evaluate student attitude toward the graphic and nongraphic computer-based instruction. Results of t-tests indicated there was no significant difference in attitude scores between graphic and nongraphic treatment groups at the .05 level.


1996 ◽  
Vol 06 (01n02) ◽  
pp. 59-63
Author(s):  
C.C. Hsu ◽  
T.C. Chu ◽  
Y.C. Chang ◽  
H.H. Hsu

The continuous X-ray of Be, Ni, and Cd targets induced by N +, N 2+, N 3+ ions were measured at the projectile energies of 50-, 70-, 100-, 150-, and 200-keV. Since the energy of the projectile is so low and the detecting limit of the detector is about one keV, the continuous X-ray would be the X-rays of nuclear and atomic bremsstrahlung (NB, AB). From the result of maximum energy of ħω. the relationship of a maximum energy ħω of below: [Formula: see text] Which indicates that the maximum energy of ħω depends on (-3/5) power of the atomic number of projectile, Zp. and on (-1/3q) power of the atomic number of target atom, Zt, and on the energy of projectile. Where q expresses the number of charge state of the projectile.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document