No abstract

Background. Presumably, the academic stress that builds throughout the academic year has a negative effect on dental students’ psychological well-being and may have a relationship with academic performance. This research aimed to analyse the variation of positive well-being in second-year dental students, across the academic semester, in relation to consecutive examinations as part of academic assessment system (1) and to observe the relationship between academic performance during semester evaluation period and dental students’ positive well-being (2).Methods. A prospective study was conducted on second-year dental students, data on positive well-being being collected with WHO-Five Well-Being Index (WHO-5), at the beginning of the semester and after three consecutive mandatory examinations.Results. One hundred and forty-six dental students were included (77% response rate). Repeated ANOVA showed a significant progressive decline of positive well-being over the semester, which was clinically significant for an important part of them. Students who performed better in the semester evaluation period registered higher well-being levels at the beginning of the semester but a more pronounced decline of it until the semester evaluation period.Conclusion. Based on this research, a relationship between positive well-being, academic assessments, and academic performance is suggested, when evaluating them in a prospective frame.

This study aimed to assess the masticatory efficiency in patients with a removable dental prosthesis, presenting different systemic, oral and prosthetic states while chewing different foods. The study was conducted on a convenient sample of patients aged 45 and above, with removable prostheses in at least one jaw. Patients were asked to chew samples of digestive biscuits, apple, and carrot, until the sensation of swallowing. The recorded masticatory function parameters were: chewing time, the number of mastication cycles, mean masticatory cycle duration, and chewing frequency. We found out that the masticatory functional parameters registered statistically significant differences according to the chewed food (e.g., generally the highest values were recorded for carrot and lowest for apple), most likely this being in relation to food’s consistency, wetting, and adherence. High positive correlations were found between the chewing time and the number of mastication cycles for all three foods taken into consideration. Higher values for chewing time and number of mastication cycles were found for all foods in patients with complete dentures and overdentures, and while chewing carrot in patients with altered general status and of advanced age. Therefore, it that it takes a different time and number of mastication cycles to complete chewing, in relation to individual and food characteristics, to the systemic, oral and prosthetic patient’s status. The residual teeth number and the type of prosthetic rehabilitation favor the adaptation and improvement of masticatory parameters and can have marker value for masticatory efficiency.

The paper investigates the risk factors for the severity of orthodontic root resorption. The multidimensional scaling (MDS) visualization method is used to investigate the experimental data from patients who received orthodontic treatment at the Department of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics, Faculty of Dentistry, “Carol Davila” University of Medicine and Pharmacy, during a period of 4 years. The clusters emerging in the MDS plots reveal features and properties not easily captured by classical statistical tools. The results support the adoption of MDS for tackling the dentistry information and overcoming noise embedded into the data. The method introduced in this paper is rapid, efficient, and very useful for treating the risk factors for the severity of orthodontic root resorption.

idea of setting the overdenture on 2 implants as first treatment alternative for the mandibular complete edentulism (according to McGill and York consensus) [2, 3, 4]. 2. Concept of implant overdentures Implant overdentures are inspired, as treatment concept, from the of the overdentures, the dental implants being used instead of tooth roots. If for teeth overdentures the attachment systems are optional, for the implant-supported ones they become mandatory. Therefore, the structural components of implant overdenture are the prosthesis (partial or complete overdenture), the dental implants and the attachment system. Using dental implants mainly aims to increase retention and/or to provide support for the prosthesis. Considering the relation between the structural components of the implant overdentures, their interaction with the oral structures and functions, the biomechanical aspects, all with impact on implants survival and treatment success, numerous treatment options and concepts have been developped. These differ in various aspects, such as the design of the dental implants used (as diameter-conventional, narrow or mini dental implants, as length), as implant number, as technique of implant placement and loading, as attachment system, as prosthesis design and as their effect on the prosthesis balance, retention and patients satisfaction [5]. Regardless of their type, implant-supported overdentures bring a number of benefits compared to the conventional dentures, by increasing their stability and retention, improving the mastication and phonation, and ensuring a physical and psychological comfort. Dental implants that are used for implant overdentures are made of high-strength alloy (Ti-Al-V), with good biocompatibility, with different designs and sizes that aim to address the prosthetic needs according to the oral particularities and clinical limitations of its execution. The first implants that were introduced in the dental practice were the ones with standard diameter, around 3.75mm. Later on, their diameter was increased and decreased (narrow), ranging between 3 and 6mm. Afterwards, the mini implants with one-piece design for implant overdentures appeared (IMTEC, later 3MESPE), with diameters of 1.8mm, 2.1mm and 2.4mm. Using dental implants with a diameter under the conventional one has increased, aspect related to the extension of their clinical indications. These were firstly used for temporary retention of the interim prosthesis and for orthodontic anchorage. Nowadays there is an increased use of them for prosthesis stabilization. Dental implants with a diameter below the conventional one, are classified mainly on their diameter, or design (i.e. one piece/two piece). Thus, implants with a diameter below the conventional one have been classified by some authors as narrow-diameter implants (3.0 to 3.5 mm) with smaller implants (3.0 to 3.25 mm), and mini-implants (<3.0mm) [6]. The miniimplants are sometimes divided in hybrid implants (2.7 to 2.9 mm) and mini implants (1.8 to 2.7mm). Conventional Diameter I...