Powered by RND
PodcastsEducationorthodontics In summary

orthodontics In summary

Farooq Ahmed
orthodontics In summary
Latest episode

Available Episodes

5 of 129
  • CBCT, what’s the harm and should it be routine? | 9 MINUTE SUMMARY
    Join me for a summary of CBCT use inorthodontics, where I look into the current risk of cancer with CBCT use, the differenceit can make to treatment planning, and the 3 most common incidental findingsorthodontists should be aware of. This was one my highlight lectures from lastyears British Orthodontic Conference by Consultant Dental Radiologist, SimonHarvey.    How much radiation comes from dentalCBCT, medicine?Effective dose of modern machines:·      Dose from full DPT with adigital system = 20-25µSv·      KAVO, MoritaX800 4 x 4cm =16uSv·      FDA values of CT scans acrossthe boy from Lubar 1500uSv – Heart 16000uSvFACT 1 – effective dose in dental imagingare far below the rest of medicine Background radiation·      Terrestrial radiation·      Cosmic radiationo  Flight London – New York 56uSv– cancer UK ‘does not effect risk of cancer, even for frequent flyers’, 4uSvper houro  Pilots do not have an increasedrisk of cancerUK 3000 uSv annuallyFACT 2 – EFFECTIVE DOSES IN DENTAL IMAGINGARE FAR BELOW THE NATURAL BACKGROUND RADIATION American Association of Physicist inMedicine AAPM“evidence supporting increased cancerincidence or mortality from radiation doeses below 100mSv is inconclusive” –cancer incidence and mortality from the use of diagnostic imaging are highlyspeculative, discourage these prediction of hypothetical harmFACT 3 EFFECTIVE DOSES IN DENTAL IMAGINGARE SO LOW, THEY DO NOT CAUSE CANCER Clinicians improved confidence andconsistency in treatment planning decisions.Impacted canine:·      3 radiographs -  namely occlusal view, opg , periapical  = still not confident about prognosis.·      CBCT = clear follicle and impactedcanine proximity to adjacent tooth, = easily make up the decision estimatingprognosis o  22%-44% change of plans Hodges 2013 Stoustrup 2024  change in treatment plans ofimpacted teeth. The majority related to change in planning, with approximately10-20% a change in exposure Vs extraction. Keener 2023  ·      Cleft – quantification of bonedefect volume for grafting and localisation of ectopic teeth·      Surgery – location of importantanatomical structures 3 Commonincidental findings for orthodontists·      Dense bone island- o  Radiopacity with no radiolucenthaloo  Mandibular premolar regiono  Harmless, may resorb roots ifcontact it·      Sinus mucosal thickeningo  Antrum floor intacto  Only concern if 5mm+·      Trabecular patterno  Around inferior dento-alveolarcanalo  No corticated boardero  normal in children, technicalreason is physiologic response as more RBC’s are developing surrounding thatarea. Pregnant women –yes as not irridating pelvic reason, CBCT beam is horizontal so no risk Conclusion1.    CBCT superior for resorption,material change to treatment plans and improve confidence of the orthodontists2.    No recommendation for takingfull mouth CBCT instead of DPT ahead of starting every orthodontic treatment asroutine and x rays should never go hand in hand3.    Small volume CBCT does is solow it doesn’t cause cancer
    --------  
    9:12
  • Orthodontics In Interview: Aligners, Limited or Just Misunderstood? TOMMASO CASTROFLORIO
    Orthodontics In Interview: Aligners, Limited or Just Misunderstood? tommaso castroflorio “The biggest difference in overcoming the limitation (of aligners) is to understand how to control aligner deformation” “We need to improve the available knowledge about aligners, because we need to control the companies, we do not need companies controlling us” “I think you can treat also complex cases, in my practice I treat extraction cases” “There are limitations in every technique, I think that the good orthodontist understands how to manage the limitation and how to overcome them” “Large mass 3D printing will represent an important evolution in orthodontics, aligners and braces” Tommaso explores the current understanding ofaligners, there limitations in terms of an appliance and scientific research. We explored the debate of aligners treating complex cases, why attachment designs still have limitations, and the role of aligners as functional appliances. We discuss emerging concerns of micro and nano-plastic toxicity andenvironmental concerns of aligners. TIMELINE 00:00:00 Introduction of Dr Tomasso Castroflorio 00:00:51 Tomasso's Early Experiences with Aligners 00:08:21 What are the Limitations of Aligners? 00:11:24 How do we Overcome Limitations with Aligners? 00:17:59 Should Aligners be Restricted to Mild to Moderate Cases? 00:20:22 Research IndicatesAligners Only Tip Teeth into Extraction Sites, Do you Agree? 00:25:50 Importance of Visualization in Orthodontics? 00:29:27 Are Functional Appliance Aligners Advantageous over Conventional Functional Appliances? 00:35:08 Has There Been Over-emphasis on Attachment Design? 00:44:18 What are the Consequences of Microplastics and Aligners? 00:50:32 What is the Future of Aligners? 00:53:54 Who do you Admire the Most in Orthodontics00:55:36 Advice from Tomasso to all OrthodontistsClick on the link below to view previous episodes, to refresh topics, pick up tricks and stay up to date.  Please like and subscribe if you find it useful! Please visit the website for this interview podcast:https://orthoinsummary.com/orthodontics-in-interview-aligners-limited-or-misunderstood-tommaso-castroflorio/   #orthodontics #farooqahmed #tomassocastroflorio#aligners#clearalignertherapy #orthodonticsinsummary#orthodonticsininterview  Farooq Ahmed
    --------  
    58:03
  • Impacted canines, resorbed teeth Part 2 | 3 MINUTE SUMMARY
    Join me for a summary of recent long-term research of resorbed teeth due to impacted canines. This podcast is based on an excellent lecture by Julia Naoumova delivered at last year’s British Orthodontic Conference. Part 2 with focus on the prognosis of resorbed teeth from impacted canines, and follows on from part 1 with explored outcomes of open Vs closed exposures of impacted canines – see here for part 1.  Root resorption of incisors reported at 19-67% Erikson 2000 Walker 2005, Mitsea 2022Anna Dahlén and Julia Naoumova 2024 retrospective CBCT study n =27 incisorsMean   Follow-up average 9 years (5.5-14.6)Patient reported outcomesSurvival 100%Horizontal grade 3 moderate resorption n=17  (resorption inner dentine not involve pulp moderate)Horizontal grade 4 severe resorption n=12 (pulp exposed severe)Vertical grade 3+ severe resorption n=7 (resorption 2mm-1/3rd moderate)oVertical grade 4 extreme resorption n = 1  (resorption 1/3rd +)No significant difference in any grade of resorption long term of the following:Symptoms Mobility and ankylosisDiscolourationIncrease gingival pocketing but not clinically significant RR horizontal changes with time No change 81%Worse 4%Improve 15%RR vertical changes  with timeNo change 43%Worsen 57%Expected as had orthodontic treatment as wellPrevious research 1-23 years Survival 93-100% Falahat 2008 , Bjerklin 2011, Becker 2005, Jönsson 2007Jönsson 2007 showed grade 1 mobility when root length < 10mm Conclusion:Extraction of asymptomatic based purely on root resorption should be routinely performedPaper by Anna Dahlén and Julia Naoumova 2024 Longitudinal study of root resorption on incisors caused by impacted maxillary canines—a clinical and cone beam CT assessment https://doi.org/10.1093/ejo/cjae052
    --------  
    3:56
  • Impacted canines, what’s the latest? Part 1 | 6 MINUTE SUMMARY
    Join me for a summary of the management of impacted canines, the latest evidence regarding different techniques for alignment. This podcast is based on an excellent lecture by Julia Naoumova delivered at last year’s British Orthodontic Conference. Part 1 will focus on recent findings of a modified open exposure technique Vs closed exposure, in terms of duration but also other key outcomes, health, pain, use of analgesics,  time absent from school and costs. The next episode, part 2, will look at the prognosis of resorbed incisors related to impacted canines long term. Previous research  no difference between closed Vs open exposure for alignment, aesthetics, treatment time, surgical success, treatment times. Limited to 2D views Parkin 2017, Sampaziotis 2018, Cassina 2018. Questionnaire of current decision making of open Vs closed: n=48 orthodontists = current clinical decision making by orthodontists based on preference Naoumova 2018Multicentre RCT Margitha Björksved 2018, 2021 Modified open exposure with Glass ionomer OPen Exposure, first described by Nordenval 1999 6/12 of spontaneous eruption Traction with orthodontic appliancesResults Total time: no difference 26 months (95% CI −3.2 to 2.9, P = 0.93) Canine eruption time: Open exposure quicker by 3 months 8.5 months Vs 11.5 months (95% CI 1.1 to 4.9, P = 0.002). With no traction in open exposure group  No difference in periodontal status, root resorption, surgery time, complications,  Pain:  greater in closed group Greater pain with bilateral open exposure Closed exposure more painful applying traction  Analgesics use (preliminary data): Day 1 nearly all patients use Day 5 drops to less than 50% of patients use Day 10 most have stopped taking analgesics Costs: – no difference  €3,400  healthcare costs €6,300 including patient costs Missed days of school (preliminary data) Day 1 -  76% open Vs 65% closed exposure  Day 2 -  3% open Vs 6% closed exposureOpen exposure with GOPEX Not appropriate for: Close to adjacent tooth, to avoid material on adjacent teeth Very high canine position  Older patient – start traction straight away, probability of ankylosis increases Cernochova 2024 1% at age 15 4% at age 20 14% at age 25 97% at age 45Conclusion: Both open and closed techniques are viable, however with open exposure of GOPEX technique the canine erupts spontaneously and quicker Less pain with open exposure unless bilateral Most patient will miss 1-2 days from school  Pain relief common for the first 5 days, but maybe used until day 10PapersOpen vs closed surgical exposure of palatally displaced canines: a comparison of clinical and patient-reported outcomes—a multicentre, randomized controlled trial Margitha BjörksvedOpen and closed surgical exposure of palatally displaced canines: a cost-minimization analysis of a multicentre, randomized controlled trial Margitha Björksved
    --------  
    6:30
  • Will dental monitoring change orthodontics?  6 MINUTE SUMMARY
    Join me for a summary looking at remote monitoring in orthodontic clinical practice, and if it can improve, quicken and enhance orthodontic clinical practice. This podcast is based on an excellent webinar by Jonathan Sandler and Juan Carlos Varela, as part of the Angle-net webinar series. I discuss how Dental Monitoring works, the proposed advantages and a review of the emerging research on this innovation in orthodontics.  What is Dental Monitoring? AI software which assesses occlusal and dental changes through a series of intra-oral photographs taken by the patient using their smartphone  How does it work? Upload STL / digital study model Ai segmentation of teeth which maps digital study model to the photos Aligner fit analysis: Discrepancy between tooth surface and aligner fit  Either proceed, continue wear or see clinician Fixed appliances  Assess rate of movement and schedule appointment Other proposed benefits Oral hygiene assessment Breakages Retention changes What do patients think of it? Patients attitudes to remote monitoring 81% interested in reducing number of appointments due to telemonitoring – Dalessandri 2021 25% of patients found scans difficult to perform, with duration of scan 2-17 minutes Hansa 2020 Does it reduce appointments and make treatment quicker? Sangalli 2024 Decrease the number of in-office visits by 1.68–3.5 visits  No difference in treatment duration  No statistical reduction in emergency appointments Are treatment outcome better (aligners)?  No difference in tooth movements  Hansa 2021 No difference in number of refinements  Hansa 2021 PAR changes – no difference in quality of outcomes Jarad Marks 2024 Is oral health better?  DM reduced plaque scores Costi 2019 31% Improved hygiene  Manzo white paper Other innovations with remote monitoring? Remote STL files Scan taken without patient attending the practice  Scanbox  Formulate STL file and fit aligner in surgery Is Dental Monitoring accurate? Ferlito 2022 80% repeatability from 2 scans 44.7% repeatability and reproducibility  Discrepancy between scanbox and intra-oral scan varied between 0.5-1.9mm, angular measurements maximum error 8.9 degrees Conclusion 2-3 appointments less No difference in overall duration Some people struggle to use Accuracy and repeatability variable No difference in the quality of the outcome Areas which are of concern Unknown accuracy of occlusal assessments from a reliable retruded contact position Patient motivation maybe better delivered in person Ai environment cost 2-3% of energy used by data centres Other ways to reduce time? Diagnostic and treatment planning acumen Identify main aspect of malocclusion and address through efficient mechanics
    --------  
    7:10

More Education podcasts

About orthodontics In summary

Farooq brings the key points, references and understandings from keynote webinars and papers in a concise podcast. Providing easy access to gain the most from our esteemed speakers and experts. *Important to note the information is from our interpretation as individual professionals, and may incorporate our opinions*
Podcast website

Listen to orthodontics In summary, Aware and Aggravated and many other podcasts from around the world with the radio.net app

Get the free radio.net app

  • Stations and podcasts to bookmark
  • Stream via Wi-Fi or Bluetooth
  • Supports Carplay & Android Auto
  • Many other app features
Social
v7.18.2 | © 2007-2025 radio.de GmbH
Generated: 5/17/2025 - 5:42:33 AM