No abstract

Despite

A BSTRACT Background: Since the introduction of digitization in cephalometrics, orthodontics has experienced a new horizon. Technological advancement is usually followed by comparisons between the methods. Aims: The aim of this study was to compare values of cephalometric analysis performed by CephNinja and NemoCeph for Downs’s analysis. Settings and Design: This prospective study was conducted using 100 diagnostic digital lateral cephalograms taken from the same machine. The samples were collected by non-probability convenience sampling procedures. Materials and Methods: The diagnostic images were cropped to standard lateral cephalogram film dimension; a scale image was placed on the top for calibration, numbered 1–100 for identification and was saved in Joint Photographic Experts Group (JPEG) format. A laptop with mouse-controlled cursor was used for NemoCeph and an android phone controlled with finger touch screen was used for CephNinja. Landmark identification for cephalometric analysis was carried out as demanded by the software. Statistical Analysis Used: One-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) was used for comparison between the variables, and one-way ANOVA followed by post hoc test was carried out to check the level of significance using Statistical Package for the Social Sciences software program, version 11.0. Results: The result showed that the difference of mean values obtained using the two software showed no statistical significance for 70% variables. Y -axis, incisor occlusal plane angle, and the upper incisor to A-Pog showed a statistically significant difference. Conclusion: CephNinja presented a satisfactory result with NemoCeph, and can be used interchangeably with confidence.

Introduction: Enameldecalcification in the form of white spot lesion is a common complication seenin patients with fixed orthodontic appliances.Aims and Objective: To determine the prevalence of white spot lesionamongFixedorthodonticpatients,to compare the occurrence of WSL among the patients with lesser and greater duration of treatment, and to Fixed orthodontic compare between the gender groups.Materials & Method: A cross-sectional study was done to compare the prevalence of WSL between 300orthodontic patients and 100 non-orthodontic subjects. A further comparison was done between the meantreatment duration between orthodontic subjects of 6-18 months and >18 months, and between male and female samples. Subjects were visually examined on the second premolar to the second premolar in both maxillary andmandibulararchesusingGorelick'sWSL index. Descriptive statistics were calculated and independent t-test was used to compare the difference between the groups. The p-value <0.05 was considered significant.Result: The prevalence of WSL in orthodontic patients was 54.3%; among them, the prevalence was 40% inlesser treatment duration group and 68.7% in greater treatment duration group. The study found a significantdifference between the untreated non-orthodontic group and orthodontically treated group with respect to thenumber of teeth affected with WSL. Also, there was a significant difference between the categories oforthodontic treatment duration. There was no significant difference between male and female samples.Conclusion: Fixed orthodontic treatment increase the risk of white spot lesion. Duration of orthodontictreatment also showed a significant increase in the occurrence of WSL.

No abstract