Analysis of six heavy metals in Ortho mineral trioxide aggregate and ProRoot mineral trioxide aggregate by inductively coupled plasma–optical emission spectrometry

Ortho mineral trioxide aggregate (MTA) is a mineral aggregate newly developed for perforation repair, root end filling and pulp capping. The aim of this study was to investigate the levels of cadmium (Cd), copper (Cu), iron (Fe), manganese (Mn), nickel (Ni) and zinc (Zn) in Ortho MTA and ProRoot MTA. A total of 0.2 g of each MTA was digested using a mixture of hydrochloric and nitric acids and filtered. Six heavy metals in the resulting filtrates were analyzed by inductively coupled plasma–optical emission spectrometry (n = 5). The results were statistically analyzed using the Mann–Whitney U‐test. The concentrations of Cd, Cu, Fe, Mn, Ni and Zn in Ortho MTA were 0.10, 7.73, 49.51, 2.58, 0.82 and 10.09 p.p.m., respectively. The concentrations of Cd, Cu, Fe, Mn, Ni and Zn in ProRoot MTA were 0.16, 9.38, 1438.11, 74.51, 18.98 and 4.05 p.p.m., respectively. In conclusion, Ortho MTA had lower levels of Cd, Cu, Fe, Mn and Ni than ProRoot MTA.     

Differential Diagnosis Generators: an Evaluation of Currently Available Computer Programs

Background  

Differential diagnosis (DDX) generators are computer programs that generate a DDX based on various clinical data.     

Reliability and validity testing for the Child Oral Health Impact Profile‐Reduced (COHIP‐SF 19)

Objectives: This study assessed the reliability and validity of the Child Oral Health Impact Profile–Short Form 19 (COHIP‐SF 19) from the validated 34‐item COHIP. Methods: Participants included 205 pediatric, 107 orthodontic, and 863 patients with craniofacial anomalies (CFAs). Item level evaluations included examining content overlap, distributional properties, and use of the response set. Confirmatory factor analysis identified potential items for deletion. Scale reliability was assessed with Cronbach's alpha. Discriminant validity of the COHIP‐SF 19 was evaluated as follows: among pediatric participants, scores were compared with varying amounts of decayed and filled surfaces (DFS) and presence of caries on permanent teeth; for orthodontic patients, scores were correlated with anterior tooth spacing/crowding; and for those with CFA, scores were compared with clinicians' ratings of extent of defect (EOD) for nose and lip and/or speech hypernasality. Convergent validity was assessed by examining the partial Spearman correlation between the COHIP scores and a standard Global Health self‐rating. Comparisons between the COHIP and the COHIP‐SF 19 were completed across samples. Results: The reduced questionnaire consists of 19 items: Oral Health (five items), Functional Well‐Being (four items), and a combined subscale named Socio‐Emotional Well‐Being (10 items). Internal reliability is ≥0.82 for the three samples. Results demonstrate that the COHIP‐SF 19 discriminates within and across treatment groups by EOD and within a community‐based pediatric sample. The measure is associated with the Global Health rating (P < 0.05), thereby indicating convergent validity. Conclusions: Reliability and validity testing demonstrate that the COHIP‐SF 19 is a psychometrically sound instrument to measure oral health‐related quality of life across school‐aged pediatric populations.