No abstract available.
Humans ; Mentors*

No abstract available.
Humans ; Mentors*

No abstract available.
Humans ; Mentors*

No abstract available.
Humans ; Mentors*

No abstract available.
Humans ; Mentors*

PURPOSE: The purpose of this study is to ascertain the stability of the implant by comparing the effects of the change of implant diameter, length and design on implant stability quotient. MATERIALS AND METHODS: To remove the variable due to the difference of bone quality, the uniform density (0.48 g/cm3) Polyuretane foam blocks (Sawbones(R), Pacific Research Laboratories Inc, Vashon, Washington) were used. Implants (Implantium(R), Dentium, Seoul, Korea) were placed with varying diameters (phi3.8, phi4.3 and phi4.8) and length (8 mm, 10 mm and 12 mm), to assess the effect on implant stability index (ISQ). Also the influence of the design of the submerged and the non-submerged (SimplelineII(R), Dentium, Seoul, Korea) on ISQ was evaluated. To exclude the influence of insertion torque, a total of 60 implants (n = 10) were placed with same torque to 35 N. Using Osstell(TM) mentor (Integration Diagnostic AB, Sweden) ISQ values were recorded after measuring the resonant frequency, one-way ANOVA and Tukey HSD test results were analyzed. (alpha=0.05). RESULTS: 1. The change of the diameter of the implant did not affect the ISQ (P>.05), but the increase of implant length increased the ISQ(P<.001). 2. The change in implant design were correlated with the ISQ, and the ISQ of submerged design was significantly higher than that of the non-submerged design(P<.05). CONCLUSION: In order to increase implant stability, the longer implant is better to be selected, and on the same length of implant, submerged design is thought to be able to get a higher ISQ than the non-submerged.
Humans ; Mentors ; Torque

STATEMENT OF PROBLEM: How the ISQ values measured by Osstell(TM) and Osstell(TM) Mentor are related, and whether the ISQ values acquired from the two machines changes in accordance with changes in implant stability are not yet fully understood. PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to find out correlation between the ISQ values acquired from Osstell(TM) and Osstell(TM) Mentor, and to evaluate the clinical effectiveness and accuracy of two devices. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Sixty two implants were inserted into 47 patients, and their ISQ values were measured using Osstell(TM) and Osstell(TM) Mentor. In the first stage surgery, the ISQ values of forty four implants inserted into thirty five patients were measured. In the second stage surgery, the values of fifty implants inserted into thirty seven patients were measured. The values were analyzed to determine the difference between the mean ISQ values of Osstell(TM) and Osstell(TM) Mentor. In addition, the correlation between implants used in the first and second stage of surgery with regard to their types and areas of insertion were analyzed. The difference between the ISQ values of 32 implants in each patient during the first and second stage was analyzed. The statistical assessment was carried out using SPSS V. 12.0 for Win. (SPSS Inc., Chicago, USA). The Pearson correlation coefficient was used to examine the correlation between Osstell(TM) and Osstell(TM) Mentor in the first and second stages of surgery, whereas the difference between their ISQ values was evaluated using a paired t-test. RESULTS: In the first stage, the mean ISQ value for Osstell(TM) and Osstell(TM) Mentor was 70.84 and 75.09, respectively, showing a significant difference (P < .01). In the second stage, the mean ISQ value of Osstell(TM) and Osstell(TM) Mentor was 71.76 and 75.94, respectively, also showing a significant difference (P < .01). The difference between the ISQ values in patients in the first and the second stages was significant with both instruments. CONCLUSION: The significant difference in the values obtained using the Osstell(TM) and Osstell(TM) Mentor between the first and second stages of implant surgery indicates that these values can be a convenient and precise way for evaluating the implant stability in clinical practice.
Chicago ; Humans ; Mentors

PURPOSE: The present study was conducted to identify the correlation between control grade and stereoacuity in basic intermittent exotropia (X[T]). METHODS: Eighty-six patients with basic X (T) were divided into 3 subgroups according to their control grade and the near and distant stereoacuities were evaluated. RESULTS: Group 1; good control group, consisted of 28 patients, group 2; fair control, 30 patients, and group 3; poor control, 28 patients. Mean near stereoacuities measured by the Titmus test were 58.21 arcseconds in group 1, 75.33 arcseconds in group 2, and 151.43 arcseconds in group 3. The mean distant stereoacuities measured by a Mentor B-VAT(R) II-SG videoacuity tester were 118.93 arcseconds in group 1, 165.33 arcseconds in group 2, and 276.43 arcseconds in group 3. When comparing the 3 groups, the poorer the control grade, the worse were the near and distant stereoacuities (p = 0.002, p < 0.001). When compared in pairs, however, group 1 showed a better near stereoacuity than groups 2 and 3 (p = 0.02, p = 0.002, respectively), while group 2 and group 3 did not show any distinct differences (p = 0.13). Group 1 also showed a better distant stereoacuity than groups 2 and 3 (p = 0.02, p < 0.001, respectively), as did group 2 compared to group 3 (p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Control grade and distant stereoacuity have significant correlation in patients with basic X (T) and can function as helpful indicators for monitoring the deterioration and progression of exodeviation.
Exotropia ; Humans ; Mentors

PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to evaluate and compare the binocular function in patients with basic and simulated divergence excess types of intermittent exotropia [X(T)]. METHODS: Seventy-seven patients, 46 basic type and 31 simulated divergence excess type, were studied by Worth 4-dot test (W4D), Polarized 4-dot test (P4D), Titmus test, and distance stereoacuity test using Mentor B-VAT(R)II videoacuity tester. RESULTS: Near W4D, distant W4D and distant P4D were fused in 71.7%, 8.6% and 52.2% in basic type and in 100%, 25.8% and 87.1% in simulated divergence excess type, respectively. The fusion rate in simulated divergence excess type was significantly higher, than in basic type (P=0.001, 0.04, 0.001). However, the difference in near P4D between the two types was not significant (P=0.24). In distance stereoacuity test, basic type showed 272 seconds and simulated divergence excess type showed 177 seconds, showing a significant difference (P=0.02). There was no significant difference in near stereoacuity between the two types (P=0.08). CONCLUSIONS: The study demonstrated a difference in binocular function in patients with basic and simulated divergence excess types of X(T). A better binocular function was observed in the latter group.
Exotropia* ; Humans ; Mentors ; Telescopes*

No abstract available.
Humans ; Memory* ; Mentors*