OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to evaluate the reliability of measurements obtained after the superimposition of three-dimensional (3D) digital models by comparing them with those obtained from lateral cephalometric radiographs and photocopies of plaster models for the evaluation of upper molar distalization. METHODS: Data were collected from plaster models and lateral cephalometric radiographs of 20 Class II patients whose maxillary first molars were distalized with an intraoral distalizer. The posterior movements of the maxillary first molars were evaluated using lateral cephalometric radiographs (group CP), photocopies of plaster models (group PH), and digitized 3D models (group TD). Additionally, distalization and expansion of the other teeth and the degrees of molar rotation were measured in group PH and group TD and compared between the two groups. RESULTS: No significant difference was observed regarding the amount of molar distalization among the three groups. A comparison of the aforementioned parameters between group PH and group TD did not reveal any significant difference. CONCLUSIONS: 3D digital models are reliable to assess the results of upper molar distalization and can be considered a valid alternative to conventional measurement methods.
Humans ; Hydrogen-Ion Concentration ; Molar* ; Tooth

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to evaluate the reliability of measurements obtained after the superimposition of three-dimensional (3D) digital models by comparing them with those obtained from lateral cephalometric radiographs and photocopies of plaster models for the evaluation of upper molar distalization. METHODS: Data were collected from plaster models and lateral cephalometric radiographs of 20 Class II patients whose maxillary first molars were distalized with an intraoral distalizer. The posterior movements of the maxillary first molars were evaluated using lateral cephalometric radiographs (group CP), photocopies of plaster models (group PH), and digitized 3D models (group TD). Additionally, distalization and expansion of the other teeth and the degrees of molar rotation were measured in group PH and group TD and compared between the two groups. RESULTS: No significant difference was observed regarding the amount of molar distalization among the three groups. A comparison of the aforementioned parameters between group PH and group TD did not reveal any significant difference. CONCLUSIONS: 3D digital models are reliable to assess the results of upper molar distalization and can be considered a valid alternative to conventional measurement methods.
Humans ; Hydrogen-Ion Concentration ; Molar* ; Tooth

Objective: To identify effects of various nationwide vaccination protocols on the evolution of new SARS-CoV-2 infections among adult population and to evaluate the safety of mRNA (BioNTech/ Pfizer) vaccine. Methods: Totally 10 735 adult volunteers that received at least one dose of BioNTech/Pfizer or triple doses of CoronaVac participated in this cross-sectional-online survey between 1 and 10 September 2021. The information was collected covering a 5-month period from April 2021 to September 2021. Information about people who were vaccinated with only single and double dose CoronaVac were not included in this study. Results: At least one side effect after single and double dose of BioNTech/Pfizer and triple doses of CoronaVac were observed in 42.1%, 42.5% and 10.9%, respectively. The most common side effects were shoulder/arm pain, weakness/fatigue, muscle/joint pain and headache. The side effects were the most frequent in single BioNTech/Pfizer, while it was the least in triple CoronaVac. The rate of positive PCR tests before vaccination was 17.6%, and decreased to 3.0% after vaccination. The rates of positive SARS CoV-2-PCR were 18.8%, 3.5%, 3.1%, 0.5% and 4.6% in single BioNTech/Pfizer, double BioNTech/Pfizer, double CoronaVac+single BioNTech/Pfizer, double CoronaVac+double BioNTech/Pfizer and triple CoronaVac, respectively. While 1.8% of PCR positive COVID-19 cases needed intensive unit care in the pre-vaccination period, intensive care unit was required in 0%, 1.5%, 2.4%, 0% and 4.2% after single BioNTech/ Pfizer, double BioNTech/Pfizer, double CoronaVac+single BioNTech/ Pfizer, double CoronaVac+double BioNTech/Pfizer and triple CoronaVac, respectively. Reinfection rate after vaccination was 0.4%. Conclusions: The rarity of COVID-19 infection after vaccination suggests that efficacy of vaccines is maintained. On the other hand, the data underscore the critical importance of continued public health mitigation.