OBJECTIVES: Doppler optical coherence tomography (DOCT) is useful for both, the spatially resolved measurement of the tympanic membrane (TM) oscillation and high-resolution imaging. We demonstrated a new technique capable of providing real-time two-dimensional Doppler OCT image of rapidly oscillatory latex mini-drum and in vivo rat TM and ossicles. METHODS: Using DOCT system, the oscillation of sample was measured at frequency range of 1–4 kHz at an output of 15 W. After the sensitivity of the DOCT system was verified using a latex mini-drum consisting of a 100 μm-thick latex membrane, changes in displacement of the umbo and contacted area between TM and malleus in normal and pathologic conditions. RESULTS: The oscillation cycles of the mini-drum for stimulus frequencies were 1.006 kHz for 1 kHz, 2.012 kHz for 2kHz, and 3.912 kHz for 4 kHz, which means that the oscillation cycle of the mini-drum become short in proportional to the frequency of stimuli. The oscillation cycles of umbo area and the junction area in normal TM for frequencies of the stimuli showed similar integer ratio with the data of latex mini-drum for stimuli less than 4 kHz. In the case of middle ear effusion condition, the Doppler signal showed a tendency of attenuation in all frequencies, which was prominent at 1 kHz and 2 kHz. CONCLUSION: The TM vibration under sound stimulation with frequencies from 1 kHz to 4 kHz in normal and pathologic conditions was demonstrated using signal demodulation method in in vivo condition. The OCT technology could be helpful for functional and structural assessment as an optional modality.
Animals ; Ear, Middle ; Latex ; Malleus ; Membranes ; Methods ; Otitis Media with Effusion ; Rats ; Tomography, Optical Coherence ; Tympanic Membrane ; Vibration

PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to compare the surface characteristics and healing patterns after implantation of implants treated with SLA and those treated with both SLA and femtosecond laser. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A total of 10 male New Zealand white rabbits were used to compare recovery levels between implants treated with SLA (SLA group) and those treated with both SLA and femtosecond laser (SF group). The implants’ surface characteristics were determined through topographic evaluation, element analysis, surface roughness, and wettability evaluation. In total, 4 implants were placed in each rabbit (2 in each tibia), with 20 implants per treatment group. Using the implant stability quotient (ISQ), marginal bone volume, and histological analysis (bone-to-implant contact (BIC), bone volume/tissue volume (BV/TV)), and post implantation outcomes were assessed. Outcome data were analyzed using independent t-tests, Mann-Whitney U tests, Wilcoxon signed-rank tests, and one-way ANOVA (α = 0.05). RESULTS: No significant differences were noted between SLA and SF groups in terms of ISQ, marginal bone volume, BIC, and BV/TV (P > .05). However, significant differences in ISQ were observed within each group over time (P < .05). Furthermore, significant differences were noted in the marginal bone volume of the SF group (P < .05) and the BV/TV of the SLA group between weeks 4 and 6 (P < .05). CONCLUSION Surface treatment via SLA and femtosecond laser is feasible compared with SLA treatment alone in terms of ISQ, marginal bone volume, BIC, and BV/TV. However, further clinical research is warranted.

PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to compare the surface characteristics and healing patterns after implantation of implants treated with SLA and those treated with both SLA and femtosecond laser. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A total of 10 male New Zealand white rabbits were used to compare recovery levels between implants treated with SLA (SLA group) and those treated with both SLA and femtosecond laser (SF group). The implants’ surface characteristics were determined through topographic evaluation, element analysis, surface roughness, and wettability evaluation. In total, 4 implants were placed in each rabbit (2 in each tibia), with 20 implants per treatment group. Using the implant stability quotient (ISQ), marginal bone volume, and histological analysis (bone-to-implant contact (BIC), bone volume/tissue volume (BV/TV)), and post implantation outcomes were assessed. Outcome data were analyzed using independent t-tests, Mann-Whitney U tests, Wilcoxon signed-rank tests, and one-way ANOVA (α = 0.05). RESULTS: No significant differences were noted between SLA and SF groups in terms of ISQ, marginal bone volume, BIC, and BV/TV (P > .05). However, significant differences in ISQ were observed within each group over time (P < .05). Furthermore, significant differences were noted in the marginal bone volume of the SF group (P < .05) and the BV/TV of the SLA group between weeks 4 and 6 (P < .05). CONCLUSION Surface treatment via SLA and femtosecond laser is feasible compared with SLA treatment alone in terms of ISQ, marginal bone volume, BIC, and BV/TV. However, further clinical research is warranted.

PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to compare the surface characteristics and healing patterns after implantation of implants treated with SLA and those treated with both SLA and femtosecond laser. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A total of 10 male New Zealand white rabbits were used to compare recovery levels between implants treated with SLA (SLA group) and those treated with both SLA and femtosecond laser (SF group). The implants’ surface characteristics were determined through topographic evaluation, element analysis, surface roughness, and wettability evaluation. In total, 4 implants were placed in each rabbit (2 in each tibia), with 20 implants per treatment group. Using the implant stability quotient (ISQ), marginal bone volume, and histological analysis (bone-to-implant contact (BIC), bone volume/tissue volume (BV/TV)), and post implantation outcomes were assessed. Outcome data were analyzed using independent t-tests, Mann-Whitney U tests, Wilcoxon signed-rank tests, and one-way ANOVA (α = 0.05). RESULTS: No significant differences were noted between SLA and SF groups in terms of ISQ, marginal bone volume, BIC, and BV/TV (P > .05). However, significant differences in ISQ were observed within each group over time (P < .05). Furthermore, significant differences were noted in the marginal bone volume of the SF group (P < .05) and the BV/TV of the SLA group between weeks 4 and 6 (P < .05). CONCLUSION Surface treatment via SLA and femtosecond laser is feasible compared with SLA treatment alone in terms of ISQ, marginal bone volume, BIC, and BV/TV. However, further clinical research is warranted.

PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to compare the surface characteristics and healing patterns after implantation of implants treated with SLA and those treated with both SLA and femtosecond laser. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A total of 10 male New Zealand white rabbits were used to compare recovery levels between implants treated with SLA (SLA group) and those treated with both SLA and femtosecond laser (SF group). The implants’ surface characteristics were determined through topographic evaluation, element analysis, surface roughness, and wettability evaluation. In total, 4 implants were placed in each rabbit (2 in each tibia), with 20 implants per treatment group. Using the implant stability quotient (ISQ), marginal bone volume, and histological analysis (bone-to-implant contact (BIC), bone volume/tissue volume (BV/TV)), and post implantation outcomes were assessed. Outcome data were analyzed using independent t-tests, Mann-Whitney U tests, Wilcoxon signed-rank tests, and one-way ANOVA (α = 0.05). RESULTS: No significant differences were noted between SLA and SF groups in terms of ISQ, marginal bone volume, BIC, and BV/TV (P > .05). However, significant differences in ISQ were observed within each group over time (P < .05). Furthermore, significant differences were noted in the marginal bone volume of the SF group (P < .05) and the BV/TV of the SLA group between weeks 4 and 6 (P < .05). CONCLUSION Surface treatment via SLA and femtosecond laser is feasible compared with SLA treatment alone in terms of ISQ, marginal bone volume, BIC, and BV/TV. However, further clinical research is warranted.

PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to compare the surface characteristics and healing patterns after implantation of implants treated with SLA and those treated with both SLA and femtosecond laser. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A total of 10 male New Zealand white rabbits were used to compare recovery levels between implants treated with SLA (SLA group) and those treated with both SLA and femtosecond laser (SF group). The implants’ surface characteristics were determined through topographic evaluation, element analysis, surface roughness, and wettability evaluation. In total, 4 implants were placed in each rabbit (2 in each tibia), with 20 implants per treatment group. Using the implant stability quotient (ISQ), marginal bone volume, and histological analysis (bone-to-implant contact (BIC), bone volume/tissue volume (BV/TV)), and post implantation outcomes were assessed. Outcome data were analyzed using independent t-tests, Mann-Whitney U tests, Wilcoxon signed-rank tests, and one-way ANOVA (α = 0.05). RESULTS: No significant differences were noted between SLA and SF groups in terms of ISQ, marginal bone volume, BIC, and BV/TV (P > .05). However, significant differences in ISQ were observed within each group over time (P < .05). Furthermore, significant differences were noted in the marginal bone volume of the SF group (P < .05) and the BV/TV of the SLA group between weeks 4 and 6 (P < .05). CONCLUSION Surface treatment via SLA and femtosecond laser is feasible compared with SLA treatment alone in terms of ISQ, marginal bone volume, BIC, and BV/TV. However, further clinical research is warranted.

OBJECTIVES: The study was done to evaluate the efficacy of optical coherence tomography (OCT), to detect and analyze the microdamage occurring around the microimplant immediately following its placement, and to compare the findings with micro-computed tomography (μCT) images of the samples to validate the result of the present study. METHODS: Microimplants were inserted into bovine bone samples. Images of the samples were obtained using OCT and μCT. Visual comparisons of the images were made to evaluate whether anatomical details and microdamage induced by microimplant insertion were accurately revealed by OCT. RESULTS: The surface of the cortical bone with its anatomical variations is visualized on the OCT images. Microdamage occurring on the surface of the cortical bone around the microimplant can be appreciated in OCT images. The resulting OCT images were compared with the μCT images. A high correlation regarding the visualization of individual microcracks was observed. The depth penetration of OCT is limited when compared to μCT. CONCLUSIONS OCT in the present study was able to generate high-resolution images of the microdamage occurring around the microimplant. Image quality at the surface of the cortical bone is above par when compared with μCT imaging, because of the inherent high contrast and high-resolution quality of OCT systems. Improvements in the imaging depth and development of intraoral sensors are vital for developing a real-time imaging system and integrating the system into orthodontic practice.
Algorithms ; Animals ; Bone and Bones/pathology* ; Cattle ; Contrast Media ; Cortical Bone/physiology* ; Equipment Design ; Image Processing, Computer-Assisted ; Orthodontic Appliances ; Orthodontics ; Prostheses and Implants ; Software ; Tomography, Optical Coherence/methods* ; X-Ray Microtomography/methods*