[24] All of the teeth in this study exhibiting dentine hypersensi

[24] All of the teeth in this study exhibiting dentine hypersensitivity also had some degree of gingival recession. Most teeth had at least 1-3 mm of gingival recession (n = 15), which is similar to the average recession of 2.5 mm reported by Addy et al. in their sample of sensitive teeth.[25] The teeth most often affected by dentine how to order hypersensitivity were the lower incisors, followed by the premolars, then the canines, and then the upper molars. This distribution is reminiscent of the reports of Rees et al.[16] Taani and Awartani studies,[13] but dissimilar to Rees and Addy,[15] and Rees,[3] and earlier studies that reported the upper premolars most affected. Since the lower incisors are the teeth most affected by calculus accumulation followed by non-surgical periodontal therapy and because of the esthetic impact of these teeth, the lower incisors are more likely to be retained, even when severely compromised.

[26] The mean number of sensitive teeth per patient peaked at about 8 in the 50-59 year group, which is higher than the values reported in several of the studies mentioned above.[2,27] It has been hypothesized that dentine hypersensitivity might be more common among smokers, as they are more prone to gingival recession. However, the data from this study found no association between dentine hypersensitivity and smoking. A recent report by M��ller et al. suggested that smokers are not at risk for gingival recession,[26] but other studies, including those of Al-Wahadni and Linden,[28] and Rees and Addy,[15] have found more gingival recession and sensitivity among smokers.

The previous studies (Fischer et al.[8] Orchardson and Collins;[7] Addy et al.[25] Flynn et al.[6] Cunha et al.[29] Oyama and Matsumoto;[30] Taani and Awartani;[31] Rees;[3] Rees and Addy,[15]) reported a higher incidence of dentine hypersensitivity in females than in males. In this study, the ratio of females to males with hypersensitivity was 1.3:1; this difference is not likely to be statistically significant. About 11% of patients in the current study reported avoiding hypersensitive teeth most of the time. This figure is similar to that reported by Taani and Awartani.[31] Approximately, 34% of patients in this study were treated for dentine hypersensitivity by dentists, and 55% had tried treatment with desensitizing dentifrice.

These figures are higher than those reported by Taani and Awartani,[31] Liu et al.[12] and Fischer et al.[8] It is the author’s clinical impression, supported by some data, (Absi et al.),[32] that dentine hypersensitivity is more prevalent among patients who have good oral hygiene practices as tends to be the case in higher socioeconomic groups. To investigate this further, the patients with dentine hypersensitivity were divided into social groups using the Registrar General’s Classification Batimastat of Occupations as used in the recent UK Adult Dental Health Survey.

Figure 1 Outline of the clinical trial Figure 2 Method of plaque

Figure 1 Outline of the clinical trial Figure 2 Method of plaque collection Figure 3 Plaque samples were collected using a microbrush (Microbrush International Ltd. Clogherane, Dungarvan Co., Waterford, Ireland) from the tooth surface (a) and sellectchem tongue surface (b) and then spread on the site strip. The strips were attached to each other … Prior to the trials, patients were informed of the design and limits of the study and instructed accordingly; these instructions included the type, amount, and usage frequency of the mouth rinse. They were also told not to perform any means of mechanical cleaning or to consume any chewing gum or similar products. This was a double-blind study, and the direction and distribution of experimental materials was performed by a secondary clinician.

The tests were conducted based on a 4-day plaque accumulation period.[18] The first group of patients constituting the positive control group were directed to use 20 mL of essential oil-containing Listerine? mouth rinse twice a day for 30 s. Listerine? mouth rinse contains eucaliptol (0.092%), menthol (0.042%), methyl salicylate (0.060%), and thymol (0.064%) as active ingredients. Inactive ingredients include, water, alcohol (26.9%), benzoic acid, poloksamer 407, sodium benzoate, and caramel. The second group was directed to use 10 mL of 0.1% Ondrohexidine? mouth rinse twice a day for 30 s. The active ingredients of this alcohol-free mouth rinse are CHX digluconate (0.1%), potassium chloride (250 ppm), PEG-40 castor oil with hydrogen, and water with sorbitol and xylitol as flavoring.

The third group was directed to use 30 mL of essential oil-containing Mouthwash Concentrate? 3 times a day for 30 s. The active ingredients of this alcohol-free mouth rinse are essential oil, water, menthol, thymol, eugenol, benzyl benzoate, and potassium hydroxide, with thyme and sage for flavor. The final group was designated as the negative control group and was directed to use 30 mL of 1% hydroalcohol solution 3 times a day for 30 s. The last rinse was performed in the evening of day 4. At the end of the test period, saliva, and plaque samples were collected in an identical fashion to the initial samples on the morning of the 5th day. Both sets of samples were analyzed for comparison. A total of 140 samples were tagged and kept in an incubator at 37��C for 96 h.

According to the strip kit manufacturer, the incubation time should be 48 h; however, to avoid the lack of expression of S. mutans colonies, the manufacturer also advised to wait 96 h and re-evaluate the colony counts. Following incubation, S. mutans colony numbers were evaluated on a population density scale from 0 to 3 using the plaque and saliva templates included in Dacomitinib a Dentocult? kit. The number of colony-forming units (CFU/mL) with characteristic morphology was screened and scored between 0 and 3. A score of 0 corresponded to zero CFU/mL (S.

Table 1 shows the frequencies of the tested parameters in the 118

Table 1 shows the frequencies of the tested parameters in the 118 examined patients. selleckbio The patients�� results almost equally split into the three SES groups. CP-I events were almost equally distributed by gender, ranging from 21.1 to 23%. Table 1 Frequencies of tested parameters in the whole population and socioeconomic groups The statistical analysis of systemic/lifestyle indices showed a significant positive correlation of Gly with BMI (P < 0.001); SBP with age (P < 0.019), BMI (P < 0.001), and Gly (P < 0.001); DBP with age (P < 0.025), BMI (P < 0.001), Gly (P < 0.001), and SBP (P < 0.001); CP-I with SBP (P < 0.037) and DBP (P < 0.012). The analysis showed instead, a significant negative correlation of NCD with SES (P < 0.001) and age (P < 0.015), Gly with gender (P < 0.015) and NCD (P < 0.

029); SBP with gender (P < 0.006); DBP with gender (P < 0.001) and NCD (P < 0.021). The correlative statistical analysis of systemic/lifestyle against dental indices showed a significant positive correlation of NMT with age (P < 0.001), NCD (P < 0.008), and SBP (P < 0.040); NDS with NCD (P < 0.001), Gly (P < 0.028), and DBP (P < 0.013); PSR with BMI (P < 0.022), NCD (P < 0.001), Gly (P < 0.001), SBP (P < 0.001), and DBP (P < 0.001). The correlative analysis showed instead a significant negative correlation of NMT with SES (P < 0.002); NDS with SES (P < 0.001); NFS with age (P < 0.031) and gender (P < 0.049); PSR with SES (P < 0.008). The statistical analysis of dental indices showed a significant positive correlation of NFS with NDS (P < 0.001); PSR with NMT (P < 0.001); NDS (P < 0.

001), and NFS (P < 0.001). The analysis showed instead a significant negative correlation of NFS with NMT (P < 0.047). The system of regression equation of systemic/lifestyle indices [Table 2] highlighted: Table 2 Coefficients and P values for the four seemingly unrelated regressions - 1 year increase of age produced a statistical decrease of about 1/9 dental element; - 1 cigarette per day (NCD unit) increase produced about 1/20 PSR increase; - 1 glycemic point (unit) increase produced about 1/100 PSR increase; - 1 mmHg (SBP) increase produced about 0.6% NDS nonlinear decrease; - 1 mmHg (DBP) increase produced about 1/70 PSR increase. - 1 SES unit increase produced about 2 NMT decrease, 2/3 NDS decrease, 4/5 NFS decrease, and about 1/3 PSR increase; The system of regression equation of dental indices [Table 2] highlighted: - 1 missing tooth (NMT unit) produced 1/2 NFS decrease, NDS nonlinear decrease (about 4.

4% for the first unit of NMT), and about 1/10 PSR increase; – 1 decayed surface (NDS unit) increase produced about 1 NMT decrease Entinostat and about 1/4 PSR increase; – 1 filled surface (NFS unit) increase produced 1.14 NMT decrease and about 1/7 PSR increase; – 1 PSR unit increase produced about 5 NMT increase, NDS nonlinear increase (about 200% for the first unit of PSR), and about 3 NFS increase.

If the pacing is sufficiently rapid, say B

If the pacing is sufficiently rapid, say BTipifarnib leukemia is the average shortening of APD resulting from decreasing B below Bcrit, and an(x) is the amplitude of alternans at the nth beat. It is assumed that an(x) varies slowly from beat to beat, so that one may regard it as the discrete values of a smooth function a(x,t) of continuous time t, i.e., an(x)=a(x,tn) where tn=nB for n=0,1,2,��. Based on the above assumptions, a weakly nonlinear modulation equation for a(x,t) was derived in Ref. 18 which, after nondimensionalization with respect to time, is given by ?ta=��a+��2?xxa?w?xa?��?1��0xa(x��,t)dx��?ga3.

(2.3) Here ��, the bifurcation parameter may be obtained by18 ��=12(B?Bcrit)?f��(Dcrit), (2.4) where Dcrit=Bcrit?Acrit; ��,w,�� are positive parameters, each having the units of length that are derived from the equations of the cardiac model; and the nonlinear term ?ga3 limits growth after the onset of linear instability. Neumann boundary conditions ?xa(?,t)=0 (2.5) are imposed in Eq. 2.3. To complete the???xa(0,t)=0, nondimensionalization of Eq. 2.3, we define the following dimensionless ?��=??w��?2, (2.6) and we rescale the time??x��=x?w��?2,??variables: ����=��?w3��?4, g��=g?w?2��2. (2.7) In this??�ҡ�=��?w?2��2,??t and parameters �� and g, t��=t?w2��?2, notation, Eq. 2.3 may be rewritten ?t��a=�ҡ�a+La?g��a3, (2.

8) where L is the linear operator on the interval 0

[The figure is based on lengths =6 and 15, but the behavior is qualitatively similar for all sufficiently large . Note that all eigenvalues lie in the (stable) left half plane.] It may be seen from the figure that there is a critical value ��c?1, such that if ��?1<��c?1, Brefeldin_A the real eigenvalue ��0 of L has largest real part (thus steady-state bifurcation occurs first) and if ��?1>��c?1, then the complex pair ��1,2 has the largest real part (thus Hopf bifurcation occurs first).

The actual cause of elongation is poorly understood several theor

The actual cause of elongation is poorly understood several theories have been proposed. It could Tofacitinib Citrate JAK be due to growth of osseous tissue at the insertion of stylohyoid ligament or it could be due to calcification of stylohyoid ligament due to unknown process or due to persistence of cartilaginous analog of stylohyal.[9,10] There has always been a natural variation in the length of the styloid process as debated by various researchers. It has been previously reported that the normal radiographic length of the styloid process is 2-3 mm of which, the pathogenic importance is the spatial position of the tip of this process.[10] Kaufman et al.[11] states that, if the length of the styloid process is more than 30 mm on the radiograph it is considered as elongated.

In the present study, the styloid process, which were longer than 30 mm were included for evaluation. There are many variations of styloid chain, including the thickness of segments, angle and direction of deviation, length of process and degree of calcification.[12] Therefore, it is necessary to define the type of elongation and calcification of each styloid in order to describe its radiographic appearance. Hence, in order to simplify the description, Langlais et al.[7] had classified styloid process based on the type of elongation and calcification. Similar classification was followed in the present study to describe the morphology and calcification of the styloid process. The panoramic radiograph rather than computed tomography are used to detect if the styloid process is elongated.

[13] Similarly, in the present study panoramic radiographs were used to identify the elongated styloid process. The average length of the styloid process was 3.67 �� 0.62 cm with a mean age of elongation was 42.95 �� 16.62 in males and 37.6 �� 14.2 in female patients. There was a significant difference in the mean elongation of the styloid process between the age group of 20-29, 50-59, and above 60 years of age. These findings were in consistent with the study conducted by Gokce et al. in Turkey population.[14] In the present study, it was observed that there was an increase in the length of the styloid process with an increase in the age. These findings were in consistent with studies conducted by various authors.[15,16] It was also observed that the styloid processes were elongated more in males when compared to females and more on the left side when compared to right side.

However, these findings were not in consistent with studies conducted by various authors.[15,16,17] Type I morphology was the most common type of morphology observed in male patients. However, it was not statistically significant in AV-951 females. The calcified outline (a) was the common calcified pattern was seen in males and on the right side of female patients. Similar findings were noticed by Ilg��y et al. in term of most common type of elongated styloid process.