1. Is there life after Buckley's Formocresol?
2. Root resorption associated with orthodontic force in inbred mice: genetic contributions 
3. Evaluation of the topical effect of alendronate on the root surface of extracted and replanted teeth
4. Psychological impact on implant patients' oral health-related quality of life
5. A new approach to define defect extensions of endodontically treated teeth
6. A comparative study of root canal preparation with NiTi-TEE and K3 rotary Ni-Ti instruments

A comparative study of root canal preparation with NiTi-TEE and K3 rotary Ni-Ti instruments 

International Endodontic Journal
Volume 39 Page 71  - January 2006
doi:10.1111/j.1365-2591.2005.01059.x
Volume 39 Issue 1

A comparative study of root canal preparation with NiTi-TEE and K3 rotary Ni-Ti instruments
B. Jodway & M. Hülsmann
Jodway B, Hülsmann M. A comparative study of root canal preparation with NiTi-TEE and K3 rotary Ni-Ti instruments.
International Endodontic Journal, 39, 71–80, 2006.

Abstract

Aim To evaluate and compare several parameters of curved root canal preparation using two different Ni-Ti systems:
NiTi-TEE (Sjöding Sendoline, Kista, Sweden) and K3 (Sybron Endo, Orange County, CA, USA).

Methodology Fifty extracted mandibular molars with mesial root canal curvatures ranging from 20 to 40° were divided into
two groups. In one group, 50 root canals were instrumented using NiTi-TEE files to an apical size 30; 0.04 taper
(the largest available size at the time of this study). In the other group, 50 root canals were prepared with K3
instruments to an apical size 45; 02 taper. Both systems were used in a crowndown manner, with copious NaOCl (3%)
irrigation and a chelating agent (Calcinase Slide, lege artis, Dettenhausen, Germany), employing torque-controlled motors.
For assessment of shaping ability, pre- and postinstrumentation radiographs and cross-sectional photographs of canals
were taken and changes in canal curvature and root canal diameter documented. Cleaning ability was evaluated by
investigating specimens of the apical, medial and coronal third of the root canal wall under a scanning electron
microscope using 5-score indices for debris and smear layer. Procedural errors (instrument separations, perforations,
apical blockages, loss of working length) and working time were recorded. Nonparametric anova was used to compare
straightening of canal curvatures, canal cross-sections and canal wall cleanliness (P < 0.05), whereas working time was
analysed using the parametric anova (P < 0.05).

Results Both Ni-Ti systems maintained curvature well: the mean degree of straightening was 0.2° for NiTi-TEE and 0.4° for
K3 with no statistical significance between the groups. Post-instrumentation cross-sections of the root canals revealed an
acceptable contour (round or oval) in 50.6% of cases for the NiTi-TEE group and in 65.3% of cases for the K3 group. The
difference was not significant. The SEM investigation of canal walls showed equally good debris removal for both systems:
NiTi-TEE prepared canal walls in 74.7% of cases with scores I and II; K3 achieved these scores in 78.7% of cases.
For smear layer, NiTi-TEE and K3 only received good scores (I and II) in 38.7% and 40% of canal wall specimens,
respectively. For both parameters, no significant differences were found between groups. File fractures did not occur,
but loss of working length was observed in one case following the preparation with NiTi-TEE and in three cases during K3
instrumentation. Mean working time was significantly shorter for NiTi-TEE (170 s) than for K3 (208 s).

Conclusions Both systems maintained original canal curvature well and were safe to use. Whilst debridement of canals was
considered satisfactory, both systems failed to remove smear layer sufficiently.

A new approach to define defect extensions of endodontically treated teeth

Journal of Oral Rehabilitation
Volume 33 Page 52  - January 2006
doi:10.1111/j.1365-2842.2006.01530.x
Volume 33 Issue 1

A new approach to define defect extensions of endodontically treated teeth: inter- and intra-examiner reliability
M. NAUMANN*, F. BLANKENSTEIN* & C.R. BARTHEL

summary For endodontically treated teeth, there are no standardized measures available to define the extent of loss in
tooth substance prior to final restoration. In this study, defect size was classified and the applicability of the
classification was tested related to the inter- and intra-examiner reliability. For classification, three parameters were
investigated: (i) remaining tooth substance in the vertical dimension (level A–D, aspect I), (ii) remaining tooth substance
 as regarded horizontally (mm; bucco-lingual and mesio-distal, aspect II), and (iii) size of the orifice (mm; aspect III).
Four non-calibrated or (pre-trained) examiners were asked to gauge and classify 20 casts of clinically broken down teeth.
The measurements were repeated twice every alternative week giving three separate readings. Inter-examiner reliability was
determined at weeks 1, 3 and 5. The intra-examiner reliability was compared between readings 1 and 2, 1 and 3, and 2 and 3.
 As statistical tests, intra-class correlation (ICC) and Cohen's kappa (weighted) were used at a significance level of
P < 0·05. Inter- and intra-examiner reliability for ordinal data (aspect I) revealed, with one exception, 'moderate' to
'very good' evaluations. Inter- and intra-examiner reliability (ICC) of metric data of aspect II and III was primarily
'excellent'. It may be concluded that the newly developed classification could be applied as an appropriate and
reproducible method to define defect extension in endodontically treated teeth.

Is there life after Buckley's Formocresol?

International Journal of Paediatric Dentistry
Volume 16 Page 117  - March 2006
doi:10.1111/j.1365-263X.2006.00688.x
Volume 16 Issue 2

Is there life after Buckley's Formocresol? Part I ? A narrative review of alternative interventions and materials
V. SRINIVASAN1, C. L. PATCHETT1 & P. J. WATERHOUSE2

Summary.

Objectives. (1) To present a narrative review of the currently available alternative interventions and materials to
formocresol pulpotomy for the management of extensive caries in the primary molar, and (2) to produce a clinical protocol
for pulp therapy techniques in the extensively carious primary molar.

Introduction. The International Agency for Research on Cancer has recently classified formaldehyde as carcinogenic to
human beings. Since Buckley's Formocresol contains 19% formaldehyde in its full strength and, therefore, 1% in a 20%
dilution, a safer alternative should be identified.

Methods. A narrative review of the published literature for primary molar pulp therapy techniques was undertaken
following an extensive and appropriate literature search. A specialist group of paediatric dentists was formed to
arrive at a consensus and establish an evidence-based protocol for the management of extensively carious primary
molar teeth. Part I of this paper explores the currently available alternative interventions and materials to
formocresol in the form of a narrative review. The second part of the paper will present the formation of a specialist
group to arrive at a consensus and establish an evidence-based protocol for the management of the extensively carious
primary molar.

Conclusions. After consideration of a review of extensively searched literature, a protocol and key points document
have been developed to assist clinicians in their treatment planning. Further long-term studies with the highest level
of evidence ( i.e. randomized controlled trials) are required to enable us to identify acceptable alternatives which can
replace formocresol

Root resorption associated with orthodontic force in inbred mice: genetic contributions


The European Journal of Orthodontics Advance Access originally published online on December 22, 2005
The European Journal of Orthodontics 2006 28(1):13-19; doi:10.1093/ejo/cji090

Riyad A. Al-Qawasmi*, James K. Hartsfield, Jr.*,**, Eric T. Everett*,**,***, Marjorie R. Weaver**,
Tatiana M. Foroud**, Deidra M. Faust* and W. Eugene Roberts* * Department of Oral Facial Development,
Indiana University School of Dentistry, Departments of ** Medical and Molecular Genetics and *** Dermatology,
Indiana University School of Medicine, Indianapolis, USA

Address for correspondence Dr James K. Hartsfield, Jr, Department of Oral Facial Development, Indiana University School
of Dentistry

Root resorption (RR) is an unwanted sequela of orthodontic treatment. Despite rigorous investigation, no single factor or
group of factors that directly causes RR has been identified. The purpose of this study was to examine the effect of the
genotype on susceptibility or resistance to develop RR secondary to orthodontic force. Nine-week-old male mice from eight
inbred strains were used and randomly distributed into control (C) or treatment (T) groups as follows: A/J (C = 9,T = 9),
C57BL/6J (C = 7,T = 8), C3H/HeJ (C = 8,T = 6), BALB/cJ (C = 8,T = 6), 129P3/J (C = 6,T = 8), DBA/2J (C = 8,T = 9), SJL/J
(C = 8,T = 10), and AKR/J (C = 9,T = 8). Each of the treated mice received an orthodontic appliance to tip the maxillary
left first molar mesially for 9 days. Histological sections of the tooth were used to determine RR and tartrate resistant
acid phosphatase (TRAP) activity. The Wilcoxon ranked-sum non-parametric test was used to evaluate differences between the
groups.

The results showed that the DBA/2J, BALB/cJ, and 129P3/J inbred mouse strains are highly susceptible to RR, whereas A/J,
C57BL/6J and SJL/J mice are much more resistant. The variation in the severity of RR associated with orthodontic force
among different inbred strains of mice when age, gender, food, housing, and orthodontic force magnitude/duration are
controlled support the hypothesis that susceptibility or resistance to RR associated with orthodontic force is a genetically
influenced trait. 

Pain management procedures used by dental and maxillofacial surgeons: an investigation
with special regard to odontalgia

Stefan Wirz* , Hans Christian Wartenberg*  and Joachim Nadstawek*
Outpatients Pain Clinic – Department of Anaesthesiology and Intensive Care Medicine, University of Bonn, Sigmund-Freud-Str.
25, D-53105 Bonn, Germany

Head & Face Medicine 2005, 1:14     doi:10.1186/1746-160X-1-14

The electronic version of this article is the complete one and can be found online at:
http://www.head-face-med.com/content/1/1/14

Received   22 September 2005
Accepted   22 December 2005
Published   22 December 2005

© 2005 Wirz et al; licensee BioMed Central Ltd.
This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License
(http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium,
provided the original work is properly cited.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Abstract

Background

Little is known about the procedures used by German dental and maxillofacial surgeons treating patients suffering from
chronic orofacial pain (COP).

This study aimed to evaluate the ambulatory management of COP.

Methods

Using a standardized questionnaire we collected data of dental and maxillofacial surgeons treating patients with COP.
Therapists described variables as patients' demographics, chronic pain disorders and their aetiologies, own diagnostic
and treatment principles during a period of 3 months.

Results

Although only 13.5% of the 520 addressed therapists returned completely evaluable questionnaires, 985 patients with COP
could be identified. An orofacial pain syndrome named atypical odontalgia (17.0 %) was frequent. Although those patients
revealed signs of chronification, pain therapists were rarely involved (12.5%). For assessing pain the use of Analogue
Scales (7%) or interventional diagnostics (4.6%) was uncommon. Despite the fact that surgical procedures are cofactors
of COP therapists preferred further surgery (41.9%) and neglected the prescription of analgesics (15.7%). However, most
therapists self-evaluated the efficacy of their pain management as good (69.7 %).

Conclusion

Often ambulatory dental and maxillofacial surgeons do not follow guidelines for COP management despite a high prevalence
of severe orofacial pain syndromes.

Background

Many heterogeneous diseases lead to orofacial pain syndromes. Descriptions such as jaw (temporomandibular) joint pain,
facial pain, and dental pain characterise these syndromes with regional anatomic descriptions. The International Headache
Society [1-3] distinguishes orofacial pain syndromes from other painful conditions.

A perseverance of pain longer than 6 months and emerging signs of chronification, as a strong association with
psychosocial problems, frequent changes of therapists, localisation of pain in other parts of the body, defines chronic
orofacial pain [4-7]. Chronic orofacial pain very often has an economic impact on health care systems [8].

The female gender is affected, mostly. References show that prevalences of orofacial pain syndromes vary from a 6 month
period prevalence of 12 to 22% to a 12 month prevalence of 20% [9-15].

The management of orofacial pain remains difficult. Often therapists cause a vicious circle by applying inadequate
invasive treatment principles resulting in persistent pain conditions which then, for their part, force therapists to
carry out further invasive procedures [8,16].

Only few investigations are publicized on the management of patients with orofacial pain treated by general physicians,
pain therapists dental, or maxillofacial surgeons. A detailed assessment of pain therapy methods was not the objective
of these studies [4,5,12,17]. Patients suffering from chronic orofacial pain are frequent in the Outpatients Pain Clinic
of the University of Bonn, Germany. Previously, many of them had visited dental and maxillofacial surgeons. Contradictory,
we knew only little about the diagnostic and therapeutic principles of these colleagues.

Therefore, this investigation aims to evaluate the ambulatory management of chronic orofacial pain syndromes by dental
and maxillofacial surgeons within a defined German regional area, adjacent to our clinic. By assessing various diagnostic
and therapeutic procedures we intended an evaluation of the realisation of the principles 'interdisciplinarity'
and 'multimodality'. Furthermore, this investigation should describe demographic patterns of patients suffering from
chronic orofacial pain syndromes.

Methods

This investigation was designed as a descriptive, observational and cross-sectional case study.

In the 3rd quarter of the year 2001, the investigators sent questionnaires to all 508 dental surgeons and all 12
maxillofacial surgeons working in ambulatory capacities in a German county in the Rhine area containing 882,000 residents,
called Rhein-Sieg-Kreis and Bundesstadt Bonn.

Questions referred to the number of patients suffering from orofacial pain during the 2nd quarter of the year 2001,
their gender, age (expressed in decades), general medical characteristics, the classification of headaches and orofacial
pain according the International Headache Society (IHS), and the aetiologies of pain. For the assessment of diagnoses,
etiological factors, and the durations of pain we used standardised forms based on the IHS and the International
Classification of Diseases, Version 10 (ICD-10).

Further points were the course of diagnostic procedures, including specialised diagnostic procedures, as radiological,
neurophysiological, – especially electromyography -, and interventional procedures, as diagnostic blocks, or local
anaesthesia. The investigators asked explicitly whether therapists knew or used visual analogue or numerical rating
scales for assessing pain.

Other questions involved the use and prescription of analgesics – such as nsaids, opioids, anticonvulsants, antidepressants,
 and muscle relaxants – and surgical procedures, such as tooth extractions, or interventional procedures, such as local
anaesthesia or sympathetic blocks. All therapists were given the opportunity to rate the efficacy of their management of
orofacial pain syndromes in a three step scale ('poor', 'indifferent', 'good').

For the evaluation of the principle 'interdisciplinarity', all disciplines of therapists, including all medical and
non-medical therapists, involved in the treatment of the patients experiencing orofacial pain were recorded.

Data were analysed descriptively by means of absolute numbers and percentages. Based on the total number of patients with
chronic orofacial pain a three month prevalence was calculated for this sample.

Seventy-two of the 520 surveyed ambulatories returned completely evaluable questionnaires (13.5%). They reported 985
patients with orofacial pain being treated in the quarter in question. The calculated 3 month prevalence of orofacial
pain based on 882,000 residents in the investigated county was 0.1%.

66.8% of patients with orofacial pain were female. Table 1 describes the distribution of the age decades of the sample.
We found 81.1% of patients with an age between 20 to 60 years (mean age 31.9, minimum 7, maximum 88 years). No data on
age was documented for 35 patients.

Patient diagnoses are listed in Table 2. Temporomandibular disorders (TMD), orofacial pain associated with headache
syndromes and atypical odontalgia were very frequent.

Etiological factors of orofacial pain could be revealed in only 546 cases (55.4%). Detailed information is given in Table 3.

392 patients (39.8%) demonstrated co-morbidity. This involved orthopaedic (130 patients/33.2%),
internal (127 patients/32.4%), psychosomatic (89 patients/22.7%), neurological (11 patients/2.8%),
and psychiatric (14 patients/3.6%) causes.

Individual durations of orofacial pain were documented in 681 patients (69.1%). Pain persevered longer than 6 months
in 61.1%, longer than 3 years in 21.3%, and longer than 5 years in 5.3%.

In most cases, diagnostics were carried out in the form of patient history and a general examination. Only 17.0% of the
therapists knew of numerical rating or visual analogue scales as methods for assessing pain intensity. Only 7% used this
device regularly. Specialised procedures, e.g. diagnostic local diagnostic blocks (4.7%), or neurophysiological procedures
(5.7%), were rarely applied. However, radiological diagnostics were more frequent (52.4%).

Nevertheless, in 28.7% of patients the delay of diagnostic procedures lasted longer than one year. The diagnostics of
three patients had not been completed over 15 years. Table 4 gives more details.

538 patients (54.6%) taking part in the survey had changed therapists before attending the ambulatory. 60.6% of these had
changed their therapist more than three times.

Table 5 describes the enrolment of other disciplines in pain therapy. Further therapists were involved in diagnostics and
therapy 761 times. Most frequently maxillofacial surgeons and pain therapists were involved, but the number of non-medical
therapists exceeded the number of pain therapists. These consisted of physiotherapists and non-medical practitioners,
a profession with permission to treat patients which exists in Germany only. Non-medical practitioners regularly use
alternative medicine, such as traditional Chinese or Ayurvedic medicine, or homeopathy.

Although 985 patients suffered from chronic orofacial pain, only 635 received a documented treatment, as can be seen in
Table 6. The use of further surgical procedures, e.g. tooth extraction, treatment of dental roots, was more frequent than
the use of physiotherapy, analgesics or the treatment of a malocclusion. Eighty patients (8.1%) received nsaids, 9 (0.9%)
opioids, 6 (0.7%) muscle relaxants and 4 (0.4%) anticonvulsants. The use of local anaesthesia was documented in 16 patients.
Further interventional procedures, such as sympathetic blocks, were not used at all.

Responding colleagues self-evaluated the therapeutic efficacy of their methods applied in 885 cases (89.8%). In their
perception, pain conditions of most patients improved. Pain rarely worsened, while no change was observed in nearly
one-in-five patients, as listed in Table 7.

Discussion

The use of a questionnaire is an established method for assessing the management of pain syndromes in patients,
but the quota of respondents taking such an approach typically is small [5,6,12,17], as demonstrated in our investigation.
Possibly, our questionnaire particularly induced responses from therapists with a very difficult clientele.

However, with nearly 1,000 patients currently being treated in 72 ambulatory dental and maxillofacial surgeries
experiencing orofacial pain syndromes, the number was unexpectedly high compared to other studies [12]. On the other hand,
the prevalence of orofacial pain extrapolated to all residents in the area of investigation was rather small, compared to
other surveys which directly assess the population [4,9,12,13,15,18,19]. Contradictory to other references [11] and the
general demographic data of this region, this investigation yielded a low rate of elderly people suffering from chronic
orofacial pain, especially patients older than 60 years of age. However, the higher prevalence of orofacial pain in females,
 as described by other authors, was documented again [9,10].

We could not define etiological factors in nearly 50 % of patients with chronic orofacial pain. Surgical procedures,
– especially if explorative and not correctly indicated -, revealed their harmful impact on chronification of pain.

The frequency of TMD diagnosis corresponded to other investigations, but the number of patients with the diagnosis
atypical odontalgia including phantom tooth pain was unexpectedly high [14,15,18-22]. Deficits in knowledge of that pain
condition, or effect of a selection (as mentioned above), might explain this. Some authors [8,14,21] could not identify
atypical odontalgias because of methodological reasons, or just described it as dental pain, demonstrating an elevated
prevalence [9,11]. Possibly, the epidemiological impact of atypical odontalgia is underestimated.

Atypical odontalgia is a severe and chronic pain disorder characterised by persistent pain with apparent clinical normal
teeth. Clinical and radiographic examination does not reveal any pathologic findings. Neuropathic signs as allodynia and
hyperalgesia are common and suggest a neuropathic origin of this pain. Heat, cold, pressure do not necessarily modulate
pain. Local anaesthetics often have no impact. There is an elevated risk of chronification, as therapists often attempt
vain interventional or surgical procedures [23-25].

Atypical odontalgia can be associated with atypical facial pain. Some authors consider atypical odontalgia to be a
subgroup of atypical facial pain [20]. On the other hand, phantom tooth pain can be regarded as a special form of atypical
odontalgia [26], a condition which occurred very often in this survey [27-29]. Furthermore, this investigation underlines
the close relationship between both pain disorders.

The high number of patients involved in the working process underlines the possible socio-economic impact of orofacial
pain. Unfortunately, socio-economic parameters (or at least of their being 'off work' due to orofacial pain) could not be
documented. Nevertheless, patients with chronic orofacial pain revealed signs of chronification or an association with
psychosomatic complaints. Other authors [15,18,28,29] also reported this association with headache syndromes.

This investigation showed that ambulatory therapists rarely followed the guidelines for the management of orofacial pain
published by the American Academy of Orofacial Pain (AAOP) [30] and the German chapter of the International Association
for the Study of Pain (Deutsche Gesellschaft zum Studium des Schmerzes – DGSS) [31]. Therapist skipped important and
easily applicable devices as analogue scales for the assessment of pain intensity or diagnostic local anaesthesia.
Despite a high co-morbidity with psychosomatic disorders, psychological or psychiatric diagnostics were omitted, causing
further delays of the exact diagnostic process [7,17,23].

According to other references this investigation demonstrated another central neglect: the exclusion of an analgesic
mediation in favour of surgery is an important etiological factor of the chronification of pain [31]. Although therapists
have recognized its significance they to not perform the multimodal approach comprising different elaborated therapeutic
strategies [6-8,16,17,21,23]. Treatment seldom comprises multidisciplinary aspects [17]: only few dentists and maxillofacial
surgeons consulted colleagues from other disciplines, as pain therapists, neurologists, or psychiatrists.

Contradictory, dental and maxillofacial surgeons high-rated the efficacy of their procedures. The high number of
'successful' treatments contrasts with other references [5-7,23]. Possibly, causes are perceptive, communicative deficits,
or administrative limitations of therapists treating severe and chronic orofacial pain syndromes.

Conclusion

In the current management of patients suffering from orofacial pain syndromes ambulatory dental and maxillofacial surgeons
ignore the principles of a multimodal and interdisciplinary pain therapy, despite their publication in various guidelines.
A standardised concept of surgical, interventional and analgesic procedures has not been implemented so far. Therapists
apply surgical procedures as tooth extractions or other surgical techniques rather than analgesics, minimal-invasive pain
therapy, physiotherapy or other conservative procedures, although severe pain syndromes, such as atypical odontalgias,
seem to be frequent in the sample population. Further prospective investigations and educational and communicative efforts
should contribute to improving this situation.

Competing interests

The author(s) declare that they have no competing interests.

Authors' contributions

All authors were equally involved in the study design, data extraction, data analysis, and preparation of the manuscript.

Acknowledgements

The investigators thank all colleagues who answered the questionnaires and provided information. Investigation on that
field is impossible without such support. Furthermore the investigators thank Thomas Korthaus for helping us in organizing
the study and data collection.
References

1  Okeson JP: Orofacial Pain. Guidelines for Assessment, Diagnosis, and Management. The American Academy of Orofacial Pain.
   Quintessence Publishing Co, Inc, Chicago, Berlin, London; 1996.
2  Olesen J: Classification and diagnostic criteria for headache disorders, cranial neuralgias and facial pain.
   Cephalalgia 1988, 8(Suppl 7):1-96. [PubMed Abstract]
3  Blank LW: Clinical guidelines for managing mandibular dysfunction.
   Gen Dent 1998, 46:592-597. [PubMed Abstract]
4  Chrubasik S, Junck H, Zappe HA, Stutzke O: A survey on pain complaints and health care utilization in a German population
   sample. Eur J Anesthesiol 1998, 15:397-408. [Publisher Full Text]
5  Dahlstrom L, Lindvall AM, Milthon R, Widmark G: Management of chronic orofacial pain: attitudes among patients and dentists
   in a Swedish county. Acta Odontol Scand 1997, 55:181-185. [PubMed Abstract]
6  Lebovits AH, Florence I, Bathina R, Hunko V, Fox MT, Bramble CY: Pain knowledge and attitudes of healthcare providers:
   practice characteristic differences. Clin J Pain 1997, 13:237-243. [PubMed Abstract][Publisher Full Text]
7  Murray H, Locker D, Mock D, Tenenbaum H: Patient satisfaction with a consultation at a cranio-facial pain unit.
   Community Dent Health 1997, 14:69-73. [PubMed Abstract]
8  Turp JC, Kowalski CJ, Stohler CS: Treatment-seeking patterns of facial pain patients: Many possibilities, limited satisfaction.
   J Orofac Pain 1998, 12:61-66. [PubMed Abstract]
9  Lipton JA, Ship JA, Larach-Robinson D: Estimated prevalence and distribution of reported orofacial pain in the United States.
   J Am Dent Assoc 1993, 124:115-121. [PubMed Abstract]
10 Riley JL, Gregg HG: Orofacial pain symptoms: an interaction between age and sex.
   Pain 2001, 90:245-256. [PubMed Abstract][Publisher Full Text]
11 Riley JL, Gregg HG, Heft MW: Orofacial pain symptom prevalence: selective sex differences in the elderly?
   Pain 1998, 76:97-104. [PubMed Abstract][Publisher Full Text]
12 Sindet-Pedersen S, Petersen JK, Gotzsche PC: Incidence of pain conditions in dental practice in a Danish county.
   Community Dent Oral Epidemiol 1985, 13:244-246. [PubMed Abstract]
13 Kohlmann T: Epidemiology of orofacial pain.
   Schmerz 2002, 16:339-345. [PubMed Abstract][Publisher Full Text]
14 Vickers ER, Cousins MJ, Woodhouse A: Pain description and severity of chronic orofacial pain conditions.
   Aust Dent J 1998, 43:403-409. [PubMed Abstract]
15 Von Korff M, Dworkin SF, LeResche L, Kruger A: An epidemiologic comparison of pain complaints.
   Pain 1988, 32:173-183. [PubMed Abstract][Publisher Full Text]
16 Milam SB: Failed implants and multiple operations.
   Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod 1997, 83:156-162. [PubMed Abstract][Publisher Full Text]
17 Lang E, Eisele R, Bickel A, Winter E, Schlabeck , Kastener S, Sittl R, Liebig K, Martus B, Neundoerfer
   E: Structure quality in outpatient care of chronic pain patients.
   Schmerz 1999, 13:102-112. [PubMed Abstract][Publisher Full Text]
18 Kohlmann T: Pain complaints among inhabitants of Luebeck: results of a population-based epidemiologic study.
   Schmerz 1999, 5:208-213.
19 Schuhmacher J, Brähler E: The prevalence of pain in the German population: Results of population-based studies
   with the Giessen Subjective Complaints List (Giessener Beschwerdebogen). Schmerz 1999, 6:375-84. [Publisher Full Text]
20 Vickers ER, Cousins MJ: Neuropathic orofacial pain part 1 – prevalence and pathophysiology.
   Aust Endod J 2000, 26:19-26. [PubMed Abstract]
21 Marbach JJ, Hulbrock J, Hohn C, Segal AG: Incidence of phantom tooth pain: an atypical facial neuralgia.
   Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol 1982, 53:190-193. [PubMed Abstract][Publisher Full Text]
22 Campbell RL, Parks KW, Dodds RN: Chronic facial pain associated with endodontic therapy.
   Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol 1990, 69:287-290. [PubMed Abstract][Publisher Full Text]
23 Turp JC: Atypical odontalgia – a little known phantom pain.
   Schmerz 2001, 15:59-64. [PubMed Abstract][Publisher Full Text]
24 Woda A, Pionchon P: A unified concept of idiopathic orofacial pain: clinical features.
   J Orofac Pain 1999, 13:172-184. [PubMed Abstract]
25 Woda A, Pionchon P: A unified concept of idiopathic orofacial pain: pathophysiologic features.
   J Orofac Pain 2000, 14:196-212. [PubMed Abstract]
26 Woda A, Pionchon P: Orofacial idiopathic pain: clinical signs, causes and mechanisms.
   Rev Neurol 2001, 157:265-83. [PubMed Abstract][Publisher Full Text]
27 Pertes RA, Bailey DR, Milone AS: Atypical odontalgia – a nondental toothache.
   J N J Dent Assoc 1995, 66:29-31. [PubMed Abstract]
28 Nicolodi M, Sicuteri F: Phantom tooth diagnosis and an anamnestic focus on headache.
   N Y State Dent J 1993, 59:35-37. [PubMed Abstract]
29 Graff-Radford SB, Solberg WK: Atypical odontalgia.
   J Craniomandib Disord 1992, 6:260-265. [PubMed Abstract]
30 Merksey H, Bogduk N: Classification of Chronic Pain. 2nd edition. IASP Press, Seattle; 1994.
31 Turp JC, John M, Nilges P, Jurgens J: Recommendations for the standardized evaluation and classification of patients
   with painful temporomandibular disorders.Schmerz 2001, 4:416-428. 

Evaluation of the topical effect of alendronate on the root surface of extracted and replanted teeth
Dental Traumatology
Volume 22 Page 30  - February 2006
doi:10.1111/j.1600-9657.2006.00417.x
Volume 22 Issue 1

Evaluation of the topical effect of alendronate on the root surface of extracted and replanted teeth. Microscopic analysis
on rats' teeth
Adriana Lustosa-Pereira, Roberto Brandão Garcia, Ivaldo Gomes de Moraes, Norberti Bernardineli, Clovis Monteiro Bramante,
Eduardo Antunes Bortoluzzi
Lustosa-Pereira A, Garcia RB, de Moraes IG, Bernardineli N, Bramante CM, Bortoluzzi EA. Evaluation of the topical effect
of alendronate on the root surface of extracted and replanted teeth. Microscopic analysis on rats' teeth. Dent Traumatol
2006; 22: 30–35. © Blackwell Munksgaard, 2006.
Abstract – The treatment of choice for tooth avulsion is replantation. The ideal replantation should be realized as quickly
 as possible, or at least, the avulsed tooth should be kept in an adequate solution to preserve the periodontal ligament
attached to the root. If that is not possible, treatment of the radicular surface should be done in order to prevent
radicular resorption. The purpose of this study was to test sodium alendronate as a substance for topical treatment of the
radicular surface of avulsed teeth in an attempt to prevent the occurrence of dental resorptions. Fifty-four rat maxillary
right central incisors were extracted and replanted. Group I – extra-alveolar dry period of 15 min, intracanal dressing
with calcium hydroxide (CALEN®, S.S. White, Artigos Dentários LTDA, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil) and replantation; Groups II
and III – extra-alveolar dry periods of 30 and 60 min, respectively, immersion in 1% sodium hypochlorite for 30 min for
removal of the periodontal ligament, washing in saline solution for 5 min, and treatment of the radicular surface with
3.2 mg/l sodium alendronate solution for 10 min. Intracanal dressing with calcium hydroxide and replantation followed.
At 15, 60, and 90 days post-reimplantation, the animals were killed and the samples obtained and processed for microscopic
analysis. The results indicated that sodium alendronate was able to reduce the incidence of radicular resorption, but not
of dental ankylosis. No significant differences were observed regarding variations in the extra-alveolar periods among the
groups.

Psychological impact on implant patients' oral health-related quality of life
Clinical Oral Implants Research
Online Early
doi:10.1111/j.1600-0501.2005.01219.x
Volume 0 Issue 0

Psychological impact on implant patients' oral health-related quality of life
Ra'ed Omar Abu Hantash1, Mahmoud Khalid AL-Omiri2 and Ahed Mahmoud AL-Wahadni3
 Abstract

Objectives: The literature has shown that patients' satisfaction with dental prostheses is associated with the existence
of certain personality profiles. It is important to study such relationships in dental implant patients.

Material and methods: Fifty patients (28 men and 22 women), aged between 22 and 71 years (mean age 43.22 years, SD 12.24
years), who were partially edentulous and were seeking dental implant therapy were entered into this study. The patients
were requested to answer two reliable and valid questionnaires – the Dental Impact on Daily Living (DIDL) and the Neuroticism
 Extraversion Openness Five-Factor Inventory (NEO-FFI) – before implant treatment and 2–3 months after prosthodontic
rehabilitation therapy.

Results: Certain personality traits were found to have a significant relationship with patients' satisfaction with dental
implants both before and after implant therapy (P<0.05). Neuroticism score had valuable features in predicting patients'
total satisfaction ratings (P=0), satisfaction with appearance dimension (P=0), satisfaction with oral comfort dimension
(P=0.005) as well as satisfaction with general performance dimension (P=0).

Conclusion: Personality traits have an impact on patients' satisfaction with dental implant therapy. In addition,
personality traits provide valuable information for the prediction of patients' satisfaction with their implant-supported
prostheses. Neuroticism, openness, agreeableness and consciousness are very helpful in this regard. Neuroticism was found
the main predictor of the patients' oral health-related quality of life following implant treatment.

To cite this article:
Abu Hantash RO, AL-Omiri MK, AL-Wahadni AM. Psychological impact on implant patients' oral health-related quality of life.
Clin. Oral Impl. Res.
doi: 10.1111/j.1600-0501.2005.01219.x