Scielo RSS <![CDATA[South African Dental Journal ]]> http://www.scielo.org.za/rss.php?pid=0011-851620170002&lang=en vol. 72 num. 2 lang. en <![CDATA[SciELO Logo]]> http://www.scielo.org.za/img/en/fbpelogp.gif http://www.scielo.org.za <![CDATA[<b>South African Dental Association Educational Theme 2017 "Oral manifestations of infectious disease"</b>]]> http://www.scielo.org.za/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S0011-85162017000200001&lng=en&nrm=iso&tlng=en <![CDATA[<b>Human papillomavirus infection of the oral cavity: what the dentist should know</b>]]> http://www.scielo.org.za/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S0011-85162017000200002&lng=en&nrm=iso&tlng=en The incidence of human papilloma virus-induced oropharyngeal carcinoma is steadily rising globally and the observation has become widely publicised in recent times. Human papilloma virus (HPV) is therefore an important infectious oncogenic agent. The aim of this article is to highlight the modes of transmission in HPV-related oral and oropharyngeal lesions whilst explaining the morphological spectra of benign and malignant disease which are attributed to low-risk and high-risk subtypes respectively. These issues as well as the topic of vaccination against HPV are likely to be the concern of many dental patients. The oral health care worker is therefore expected to provide appropriate counselling and education when informing patients of the potential health risks posed by HPV. <![CDATA[<b>Biaxial flexural strength of three ceramic oxide core materials</b>]]> http://www.scielo.org.za/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S0011-85162017000200003&lng=en&nrm=iso&tlng=en INTRODUCTION: Brittleness and low strength render conventional ceramic systems unsuitable for routine restorative use in molars. Modern, high-strength ceramic core materials such as high purity aluminum oxide (Al2O3) and yttrium - partially stabilized zirconia (Y-PSZ) have been designed for aesthetic, metal-free, all-ceramics in posterior teeth. AIMS AND OBJECTIVES: 1. To compare the biaxial flexural strengths of these two core materials. 2. To compare the strengths of Y-PSZ samples produced by two manufacturers. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Three groups of discs measuring 16mm diameter and 2mm thickness were prepared for each of the sample materials, high purity Al2O3, commercially available as Turkom-Cera, and Y-PSZ, commercially available as Cercon and LAVA. The Biaxial flexural strengths were measured using a Zwick Z010 Material Testing Machine. Reliability was compared using Weibull Moduli. RESULTS: Mean strengths for LAVA, Cercon and Turkom-Cera were 866.44, 586.92, 155.71 MPa respectively. Statistically significant differences were shown between the mean values. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS: This project showed that the samples of Y-PSZ had higher biaxial flexural strengths than those of high purity Al2O3. The biaxial flexural strengths of Y-PSZ, sourced from two manufacturers, are significantly different. It is suggested that Y-PSZ is suitable and indicated for restorative use in molar regions. <![CDATA[<b>Xerostomia and salivary flow rates in HIV patients</b>]]> http://www.scielo.org.za/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S0011-85162017000200004&lng=en&nrm=iso&tlng=en INTRODUCTION: Whilst the incidence of oral manifestations in HIV infected patients has decreased with the advent of highly active antiretroviral therapy (HAART), salivary gland disease is reported to be increasing among those on this treatment regime. AIMS AND OBJECTIVES: To compare the prevalence of xerostomia and mean salivary flow rates in three groups: HIV negative (Gr-1), HIV positive but not on HAART (Gr-2) and HIV positive on HAART (Gr-3). DESIGN: A cross sectional analytical study. METHODS: Xerostomia was assessed using a questionnaire. Saliva was collected and flow rates established. CD4 counts, viral loads and HAART regimens were recorded where appropriate. RESULTS: Significant differences were observed between the groups regarding the prevalence of xerostomia (p=0.006), mean resting (p=0.010) and stimulated (p=0.034), salivary flow rates. Gr-2 showed the greatest salivary deficiency. Salivary flow was not decreased by HAART. Levels of CD4 <350 were linked to low resting flow rates in Gr-2. In Gr-3, patients on fixed dose combination (FDC) showed a significantly lower stimulated flow rate (p=0.034) than those on other HAART regimens. CONCLUSION: HIV positive patients not on HAART are more vulnerable to decreased salivary flow rates. HAART did not adversely affect xerostomia or salivary flow rates in this population group. <![CDATA[<b>A comparative study to determine the shock absorption ability of two popular mouth guards available on the South African market</b>]]> http://www.scielo.org.za/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S0011-85162017000200005&lng=en&nrm=iso&tlng=en It is expected that most mouth guards will provide some level of protection to teeth. In this study a device was developed to measure the relative impact absorption of two different mouth guards (Proform, Type III vacuum-formed and Max, Type IV pressure laminate). Seven of each of the two types of mouth guards were made and each batch was exposed to between six and 10 impact trials. RESULTS: The variations in shock absorption between the batches per mouth guard were found to be not statistically significant on a 1% significance level (two-way ANOVA and the Tukey multiple comparison test). Furthermore, impact absorption on the control where no mouth guard was in place, was more than four times lower. The Max mouth guard was found to be superior with a shock absorption value of 88%. It is advised that a mouth guard should always be used in all contact sports. CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE: This study shows that the two tested mouth guards (Max and Proform) have the ability to significantly reduce the force of an impact on teeth. <![CDATA[<b>A compromise between orthodontics and surgery: a case report</b>]]> http://www.scielo.org.za/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S0011-85162017000200006&lng=en&nrm=iso&tlng=en It is expected that most mouth guards will provide some level of protection to teeth. In this study a device was developed to measure the relative impact absorption of two different mouth guards (Proform, Type III vacuum-formed and Max, Type IV pressure laminate). Seven of each of the two types of mouth guards were made and each batch was exposed to between six and 10 impact trials. RESULTS: The variations in shock absorption between the batches per mouth guard were found to be not statistically significant on a 1% significance level (two-way ANOVA and the Tukey multiple comparison test). Furthermore, impact absorption on the control where no mouth guard was in place, was more than four times lower. The Max mouth guard was found to be superior with a shock absorption value of 88%. It is advised that a mouth guard should always be used in all contact sports. CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE: This study shows that the two tested mouth guards (Max and Proform) have the ability to significantly reduce the force of an impact on teeth. <![CDATA[<b>Finally Finished: Part 7: The Writing Sequence</b>]]> http://www.scielo.org.za/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S0011-85162017000200007&lng=en&nrm=iso&tlng=en It is expected that most mouth guards will provide some level of protection to teeth. In this study a device was developed to measure the relative impact absorption of two different mouth guards (Proform, Type III vacuum-formed and Max, Type IV pressure laminate). Seven of each of the two types of mouth guards were made and each batch was exposed to between six and 10 impact trials. RESULTS: The variations in shock absorption between the batches per mouth guard were found to be not statistically significant on a 1% significance level (two-way ANOVA and the Tukey multiple comparison test). Furthermore, impact absorption on the control where no mouth guard was in place, was more than four times lower. The Max mouth guard was found to be superior with a shock absorption value of 88%. It is advised that a mouth guard should always be used in all contact sports. CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE: This study shows that the two tested mouth guards (Max and Proform) have the ability to significantly reduce the force of an impact on teeth. <![CDATA[<b>Lasers in periodontics</b>]]> http://www.scielo.org.za/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S0011-85162017000200008&lng=en&nrm=iso&tlng=en It is expected that most mouth guards will provide some level of protection to teeth. In this study a device was developed to measure the relative impact absorption of two different mouth guards (Proform, Type III vacuum-formed and Max, Type IV pressure laminate). Seven of each of the two types of mouth guards were made and each batch was exposed to between six and 10 impact trials. RESULTS: The variations in shock absorption between the batches per mouth guard were found to be not statistically significant on a 1% significance level (two-way ANOVA and the Tukey multiple comparison test). Furthermore, impact absorption on the control where no mouth guard was in place, was more than four times lower. The Max mouth guard was found to be superior with a shock absorption value of 88%. It is advised that a mouth guard should always be used in all contact sports. CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE: This study shows that the two tested mouth guards (Max and Proform) have the ability to significantly reduce the force of an impact on teeth. <![CDATA[<b>Maxillo-facial radiology case 148</b>]]> http://www.scielo.org.za/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S0011-85162017000200009&lng=en&nrm=iso&tlng=en It is expected that most mouth guards will provide some level of protection to teeth. In this study a device was developed to measure the relative impact absorption of two different mouth guards (Proform, Type III vacuum-formed and Max, Type IV pressure laminate). Seven of each of the two types of mouth guards were made and each batch was exposed to between six and 10 impact trials. RESULTS: The variations in shock absorption between the batches per mouth guard were found to be not statistically significant on a 1% significance level (two-way ANOVA and the Tukey multiple comparison test). Furthermore, impact absorption on the control where no mouth guard was in place, was more than four times lower. The Max mouth guard was found to be superior with a shock absorption value of 88%. It is advised that a mouth guard should always be used in all contact sports. CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE: This study shows that the two tested mouth guards (Max and Proform) have the ability to significantly reduce the force of an impact on teeth. <![CDATA[<b>Forensic dentistry case book 8: Taking identification to a higher level</b>]]> http://www.scielo.org.za/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S0011-85162017000200010&lng=en&nrm=iso&tlng=en It is expected that most mouth guards will provide some level of protection to teeth. In this study a device was developed to measure the relative impact absorption of two different mouth guards (Proform, Type III vacuum-formed and Max, Type IV pressure laminate). Seven of each of the two types of mouth guards were made and each batch was exposed to between six and 10 impact trials. RESULTS: The variations in shock absorption between the batches per mouth guard were found to be not statistically significant on a 1% significance level (two-way ANOVA and the Tukey multiple comparison test). Furthermore, impact absorption on the control where no mouth guard was in place, was more than four times lower. The Max mouth guard was found to be superior with a shock absorption value of 88%. It is advised that a mouth guard should always be used in all contact sports. CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE: This study shows that the two tested mouth guards (Max and Proform) have the ability to significantly reduce the force of an impact on teeth. <![CDATA[<b>Continuous education in sedation: The importance of training and updating the sedation practitioner</b>]]> http://www.scielo.org.za/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S0011-85162017000200011&lng=en&nrm=iso&tlng=en It is expected that most mouth guards will provide some level of protection to teeth. In this study a device was developed to measure the relative impact absorption of two different mouth guards (Proform, Type III vacuum-formed and Max, Type IV pressure laminate). Seven of each of the two types of mouth guards were made and each batch was exposed to between six and 10 impact trials. RESULTS: The variations in shock absorption between the batches per mouth guard were found to be not statistically significant on a 1% significance level (two-way ANOVA and the Tukey multiple comparison test). Furthermore, impact absorption on the control where no mouth guard was in place, was more than four times lower. The Max mouth guard was found to be superior with a shock absorption value of 88%. It is advised that a mouth guard should always be used in all contact sports. CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE: This study shows that the two tested mouth guards (Max and Proform) have the ability to significantly reduce the force of an impact on teeth. <![CDATA[<b>Request for records by demanding patient</b>]]> http://www.scielo.org.za/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S0011-85162017000200012&lng=en&nrm=iso&tlng=en It is expected that most mouth guards will provide some level of protection to teeth. In this study a device was developed to measure the relative impact absorption of two different mouth guards (Proform, Type III vacuum-formed and Max, Type IV pressure laminate). Seven of each of the two types of mouth guards were made and each batch was exposed to between six and 10 impact trials. RESULTS: The variations in shock absorption between the batches per mouth guard were found to be not statistically significant on a 1% significance level (two-way ANOVA and the Tukey multiple comparison test). Furthermore, impact absorption on the control where no mouth guard was in place, was more than four times lower. The Max mouth guard was found to be superior with a shock absorption value of 88%. It is advised that a mouth guard should always be used in all contact sports. CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE: This study shows that the two tested mouth guards (Max and Proform) have the ability to significantly reduce the force of an impact on teeth. <![CDATA[<b>What's new for the clinician? Summaries of and excerpts from recently published papers</b>]]> http://www.scielo.org.za/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S0011-85162017000200013&lng=en&nrm=iso&tlng=en It is expected that most mouth guards will provide some level of protection to teeth. In this study a device was developed to measure the relative impact absorption of two different mouth guards (Proform, Type III vacuum-formed and Max, Type IV pressure laminate). Seven of each of the two types of mouth guards were made and each batch was exposed to between six and 10 impact trials. RESULTS: The variations in shock absorption between the batches per mouth guard were found to be not statistically significant on a 1% significance level (two-way ANOVA and the Tukey multiple comparison test). Furthermore, impact absorption on the control where no mouth guard was in place, was more than four times lower. The Max mouth guard was found to be superior with a shock absorption value of 88%. It is advised that a mouth guard should always be used in all contact sports. CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE: This study shows that the two tested mouth guards (Max and Proform) have the ability to significantly reduce the force of an impact on teeth.