No abstract available.

No abstract available.

No abstract available.
Finite Element Analysis* ; Prostheses and Implants* ; Tooth*

No abstract available.

No abstract available.
Jaw, Edentulous*

No abstract available.
Finite Element Analysis* ; Plastics* ; Titanium*

No abstract available.
Phonation* ; Tooth*

This study was undertaken to compare by Atomic Force Microscope the effects of various finishing and polishing instruments on surface roughness of filling and veneering composite resins. Seven composite resins were studied : Silux Plus (3M Dental Products, U.S.A.), charisma (Heraeus Kulzer, Germany), Prisma THP (L.D.Caulk, Dentsply, U.S.A.), Photoclearfil (Kuraray, Japan), Cesead (Kuraray, Japan), Thermoresin LC (GC, Japan), Artglass (Heraeus Kulzer, Germany), samples were placed and polymerized in holes (2mm thick and 8.5mm in diameter) machined in Teflon mold under glass plate, ensuring excess of material and moulded to shape with polyester matrix strip, Except control group (polyester mztrix strip), all experimental groups were finished and polishied under manufacturer's instructions. The finishing and polishing procedure were : carbide bur (E.T. carbide set 4159, Komet, Germany), diamond bur (composite resin polishing bur set, GC, Japan), aluminum-oxide disc (Sof-Lex Pop-On, 3M Dental Products, U.S.A.), diamond-particle disc (Dia-Finish, Renfert Germany), white stone bur & rubber point(composite finishing kit, EDENTA, Swiss), respectively. Each specimens were evaluated for the surface roughness with Atomic Force Microscope (AutoProbe CP, Park Scientific Instruments, U.S.A.) under contact mode and constant height mode. The results as follows : 1. Except Thermoresin LC, all experimental composite resin groups showed more rougher than control group after finishing and polishing(p<0.1). 2. A surface as smooth as control group was obtained by Al2O3 disc all filling composite resin groups except Charisma and all veneering composite resin groups except Thermoresin LC(p<0.05). 3. In case of Thermoresin LC, there were no statistically significant differences before and after finishing and polishing(p>0.1). 4. Carbide bur, diamond bur showed rough surfaces in all composite resin groups, so these were inappropriate for the final poslishing instruments.
Bisphenol A-Glycidyl Methacrylate ; Composite Resins* ; Dental Instruments ; Fungi ; Glass ; Polyesters ; Polymers ; Polytetrafluoroethylene ; Rubber

PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to assess the treatment outcomes and prognosis of Lisfranc joint fracture and dislocation according to the mechanism of injury and treatment method. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Twenty six patients with Lisfranc fracture-dislocation who had been treated surgically were included in this retrospective study. The patients were divided into two groups according to mechanism of injury: direct crushing injury (16 patients) and indirect rotational or compressive injury (10 patients). The patients were also divided into three groups according to the surgical methods. The parameters used were radiographic evaluation, patients' subjective satisfaction levels, length of hospital stay, and the American Orthopaedic Foot and Ankle Society (AOFAS) midfoot score. Statistical analysis was performed. RESULTS: The mean postoperative AOFAS midfoot score was 78.7. The mean length of stay was 39.6 days. Statistically significant differences in subjective satisfaction, AOFAS midfoot score, and length of hospital stay were observed between the two groups (p<0.05). However, no significance differences were observed between the three groups who were divided according to the different surgical methods (p>0.05). CONCLUSION: Mechanism of trauma and the severity of soft-tissue injury were significant prognostic factors affecting the surgical outcomes of Lisfranc joint fracture and dislocation.
Ankle ; Dislocations* ; Foot ; Humans ; Joints* ; Length of Stay ; Prognosis* ; Retrospective Studies

STATEMENT OF PROBLEM & PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to investigate the effect of a mouth guard material properties on the skull and brain when they were under impact loads on mandible. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Two customized mouth protectors having different material propeerst ieach other were made for a female Korean who had no history of brain trauma, no cerebral diseases, nomal occlusion and natural dentition. The 3D finite element model of human skull and brain scanned by means of computed tomography was constructed. The FEM model of head was composed of 407,825 elements and 82,138 nodes, including skull, brain, maxilla, mandible, articular disc, teeth and mouth guard. The stress concentrations on maxillary teeth, maxilla and skull with two mouth guards were evaluated under oblique impact load of 800N onto mandibular 3 loading points for 0.1sec. And the brain relative displacement was compared in two different mouth guard materials under same condition. RESULT AND CONCLUSION: The results were as follows; 1. In comparison of von Mises stress on maxillary teeth, a soft mouth guard material had significantly lower stress values on measuring point than a hard mouth protector materials (P < .05). 2. In comparison of von Mises stress on maxilla and skull, A soft mouth protector material had significantly lower stress values on measuring point than a hard mouth protector materials (P < .05). 3. For impact loads on mandible, there were more stress concentrated area on maxilla and skull with hard mouth guard than soft with mouth protector. 4. For impact loads on mandible, brain relative displacement had little relation with mouth guard material properties. In results of this study, soft mouth guard materials were superior to hard mouth guard materials for mandible impact loads for prevention of sports injuries. Although the results of this study were not enough to figure out the roles of needed mouth guard material properties for a human head, we got some knowledge of the pattern about stress concentration and distribution on maxilla and skull for impact loads with soft or hard mouth protector. More studies are needed to substantiate the relationship between the mouth guard materials and sports injuries.
Athletic Injuries ; Brain ; Brain Injuries ; Dentition ; Displacement (Psychology) ; Female ; Head ; Humans ; Mandible ; Maxilla ; Mouth ; Mouth Protectors ; Skull ; Tooth