Read
Paper 1 | Read Comments | Add Comments
Comments
for Paper 1
What I mean by margin of error is that what percentage of carious lesions could be missed by the detection of the Diagnodent system.
Phillip Zhan <phzhan@yahoo.com>
- Tuesday, October 22, 2002 at 12:39:44 (CDT)
The paper was great. The machine seems to be a helpful tool to detect caries, but what is the margin of error that it could give?
Phillip Zhan <phzhan@yahoo.com>
- Tuesday, October 22, 2002 at 12:35:44 (CDT)
I am interested in the air abrasion that you talked about in the paper. Why have we not been shown this before or even been able to use in the pre-clinic before now?
Erick Hallie <ehallie@hotmail.com>
- Tuesday, October 22, 2002 at 12:34:57 (CDT)
I enjoyed the paper. I was also fascinated about sealing in restorations to dercrease the frequency of recurrent decay. I can see how this would work well with composites, but what kind of bond would you get when sealing in an amalgam?
Bradley Morrison <morr0188@tc.umn.edu>
- Tuesday, October 22, 2002 at 12:10:31 (CDT)
I is about time we here some good practical info on caries. It seems interesting to me that we are in our third year of dental school and have heard very little about this topic in a practical clinical sense.
james sigaty <siga0004@tc.umn.edu>
- Tuesday, October 22, 2002 at 11:01:11 (CDT)
I recently had a patient in admissions with very large amalgam restorations. She said when she was growing up, the dentist's philosophy was, "lets wait to see if that get bigger." It's nice to have technology available that provides more objective data. I'm looking forward to seeing the presentation.
stephanie miner <schw0438>
- Tuesday, October 22, 2002 at 10:59:22 (CDT)
Even if it isn't always necessary to invasivelly treat incipient caries, it should be detectable, then we can at least lead the patient in the right prophylactic direction.
kelly reynolds <krol0068@umn.edu>
- Tuesday, October 22, 2002 at 10:46:55 (CDT)
Very well-written paper! I've had patients ask about the Diagnodent system and I didn't really know much about it, so it was interesting to read about it in your paper.
Polly LoCascio <loca0008@tc.umn.edu>
- Tuesday, October 22, 2002 at 10:26:18 (CDT)
I have several patients with incipient caries, I found your paper to be a good source of information.
Ben Fenger <feng0032@tc.umn.edu>
- Tuesday, October 22, 2002 at 10:07:06 (CDT)
I am looking forward to hearing about and trying new caries detection devices.
Stephen Sawyer <sawy0071@umn.edu>
- Tuesday, October 22, 2002 at 09:47:19 (CDT)
Interesting paper, I didn't know that 40% of dentin had to be carious before radiographic detection, or how unreliable radiographs and the explorer can be as diagnostic tools.
Alisa Nord <anord@tc.umn.edu>
- Tuesday, October 22, 2002 at 09:31:54 (CDT)
Diagnodent seems to be a move to a technological dental future for us. It is great to see the advances in caries detection. I am excited to see this lecture.
ryan tietz <tiet0020@tc.umn.edu>
- Tuesday, October 22, 2002 at 09:17:21 (CDT)
Very well done! This paper was interesting to read and informative. I liked how the group used a patient example throughout the paper and related the concepts discussed directly to the patient. Thanks for talking about the eletrical conductance measurements, laser fluorescence, and DIAGNOdent system - all things that I didn't know much about.
Jessica Inglis <ingl0011@umn.edu>
- Tuesday, October 22, 2002 at 09:16:37 (CDT)
Great paper, I'd be very interested to try out some of the new caries detection devices.
Todd Miller <mill1154@umn.edu>
- Tuesday, October 22, 2002 at 09:11:22 (CDT)
I have read some papers that say tactile detection of dental decay is inaccurate and a health risk. The particular article I read brought up cross-contamination and further cavitation of the lesion as reasons why you should not rely on probing for 'sticks' to detect decay. Did you find any information about this in your sources?
Luke Eichmeyer <eich0092@tc.umn.edu>
- Tuesday, October 22, 2002 at 09:10:44 (CDT)
Good paper, interesting to read. I like the aspect of using all of the diagnostic tools together rather than being limited to one type. Looking foward to the presentation.
Alyssa Hedstrom <lind0617@umn.edu>
- Tuesday, October 22, 2002 at 09:04:19 (CDT)
Good paper! Lots of good info presented in a way that is easy to understand. My comment is that incipient lesions (white spots) in anterior teeth are often very unesthetic. After fluoride remineralization, do the white spots ever disappear?
Roxane Huber <hube0079@tc.umn.edu>
- Monday, October 21, 2002 at 23:27:47 (CDT)
I liked how they showed how the new technology can help out in incipient decay and how it was suppose to be only used as an adjunct. If a dentist uses these new techniques along with visual,tactile skills and xrays together they will be able to stop the lesions before they require any invasive action.
Brian McDonald <bmcdonal@umn.edu>
- Monday, October 21, 2002 at 22:57:10 (CDT)
I look forward to tomorrows presentation because identifying a carious lesion clinically before any major signs of cavitation is still very difficult. Is the DIAGNOdent available for us to use in the 9 south clinics, or is it for the Contemporary clinic only? Very interesting paper with a lot of well supported evidnece.
Aaron Johnson <john3097@tc.umn.edu>
- Monday, October 21, 2002 at 22:47:39 (CDT)
Great job group 1! I thought the paper was well written and very informative. I really enjoyed reading about the different caries detection devices. I look forward to getting to use the DIAGNOdent system in the future.
Kara Lobaugh <loba0008@tc.umn.edu>
- Monday, October 21, 2002 at 22:15:57 (CDT)
The paper is very interesting. Personally, caries detection is an area that is still a little tricky. The use of laser fluoresence/DIAGNOdent is something I've been asked about several times. I look forward to hearing your presentation.
Bryan Johnson <john2819@umn.edu>
- Monday, October 21, 2002 at 22:11:07 (CDT)
Great paper! I felt that group 1 did a good job of stressing that these new technologies to detect caries are very useful but do not completely replace classic techniques. They are adjuncts to good clinical examinations and in the end better treatments for our patients.
Ben Knutzen <knutzebt@tc.umn.edu>
- Monday, October 21, 2002 at 21:44:53 (CDT)
Very interesting and well written paper. I am wondering (and maybe this is a stupid question but...) if one does take a watchful course of action with additional fluoride, etc., if remineralization occurs will it be clinically and radiographically evident? (i.e. will the white spot go away, will the shadow on the bitewing no longer show up?
Chris Wangen <wang0141@umn.edu>
- Monday, October 21, 2002 at 21:37:00 (CDT)
Are we supposed to comment on our own paper? I would like to see the DIAGNOdent and air abrasion, etc. in action. These things should be available for us to use upstairs, or at least see in action.
Patrick J Capp <capp0021@tc.umn.edu>
- Monday, October 21, 2002 at 21:19:56 (CDT)
Your paper was very interesting. I look forward to learning more about the DIAGNOdent system and the air abrasion system.
Monique Wood <wood0455@umn.edu>
- Monday, October 21, 2002 at 19:25:09 (CDT)
I was able to try diagnodent on Mike at his dad's office and it was a really neat thing. I look forward to seeing your presentation. The one thing that I find interesting is Mike's dad mentioned that he has never "opened-up" an area where diagnodent showed decay to not find decay whereas you said you had some false readings. Any theories on that or research to support one side or another?
Sarah Laszcwski Melstrom <slaszcws@tc.umn.edu>
- Monday, October 21, 2002 at 19:11:03 (CDT)
Is it possible to use/demo the DIAGNOdent system? Where is it located? Also, there has been some press on the air abrasion system and patients are interested. When is it appropriate to use this system, and when does a conventional bur exibit better results?
kellee kattleman <katt0013@tc.umn.edu>
- Monday, October 21, 2002 at 18:07:55 (CDT)
Do we have the opportunity to use the diagnodent in the clinic? How do we go about doing that?
Jason Johnson <john4525@umn.edu>
- Monday, October 21, 2002 at 17:26:10 (CDT)
I liked your paper. It took the right amount of technical information to support your point without killing us with statistics. I agree that the diagnosis of dental caries should not simply be the clinical and radiographic interpritations. I think that caries detection systems can be a useful tool in our battle.
Brett Knutson <knut0283@umn.edu>
- Monday, October 21, 2002 at 17:19:25 (CDT)
I found it interesting how they are using newer types of caries detection devices to limit the extent of preparations. Thus, converting what would have been a large prep under the GV Black scheme to smaller more conservative preps with small round burs or air abrasion units. With the advent of composite bonding and better detection, the need for invasiveness has decreased to only those areas affected. In pedo, I enjoyed doing PRR's to excavate only the early carious pit and fissures while leaving most of the occlusal tooth structre intact.
Devin Croft <crof0017@tc.umn.edu>
- Monday, October 21, 2002 at 17:10:43 (CDT)
Fanstastic Paper! Where do you draw the line between a PRR and a traditional sealant?
David Gilmer <gilm0069@tc.umn.edu>
- Monday, October 21, 2002 at 16:51:42 (CDT)
Great job group 1! I'm very interested in not only the new technology available, but their specificity and sensitivity as well. I look forward to your presentation.
Leslie Spangler <span0072@umn.edu>
- Monday, October 21, 2002 at 16:45:11 (CDT)
I thought this was a well written paper. I definately want to try some of these new caries detection devices. I think they will be very helpful in clinic
Jeremy Gross <gros0159@tc.umn.edu>
- Monday, October 21, 2002 at 15:57:18 (CDT)
I enjoyed the explinations of new technology (EC) being used today to detect caries. Detecting them early is the key to arresting them & encouraging remineralization rather than demineralization. I think it is important that we implement these sources to better serve our patients.
Heidi Nichols-Johnson <nichols_hi_d@hotmail.com>
- Monday, October 21, 2002 at 15:45:14 (CDT)
I think the main message is very good. Some of the instructors at this school should be more open to monitoring some lesions instead of using invasive treatment modalities immediately. Yes, we as students need the practice but the patient should come first.
Sachin Mehta <meht0026@tc.umn.edu>
- Monday, October 21, 2002 at 12:50:59 (CDT)
Great paper! You did a great job presenting the new and the old techniques for detection. It was great to hear a little on DIAGNOdent and air abrasion, I look forward to trying these out!
Jolene Welter <welt0081@tc.umn.edu>
- Monday, October 21, 2002 at 11:11:07 (CDT)
Nice job with the topic Section 1. I was interesting in knowing if the school had any of this new technology for us to experiment with, or if this is just wishful thinking for when we leave the school?
Russ Dylla <rdylla@tc.umn.edu>
- Sunday, October 20, 2002 at 22:51:58 (CDT)
I thought that the paper was very informative and well written. I liked reading about the new technology available for caries detection such as laser fluorescence and the DIAGNOdent system.
Erin Gannon <gann0033@tc.umn.edu>
- Sunday, October 20, 2002 at 17:05:16 (CDT)
I thought that was a well written paper. I enjoyed reading about the new techniques in caries detection and look forward to the presentation in class.
Jeremy Wehrman <wehr0018@tc.umn.edu>
- Saturday, October 19, 2002 at 13:40:34 (CDT)
I thought the paper was well written and each section was concise and allowed the reader to pick out the important points with ease. I was really interested in the PRR caries removal technique and their success.
Brandon Owen <owen0133@umn.edu>
- Friday, October 18, 2002 at 12:59:21 (CDT)
This paper was very interesting and informative. Incipient lesions are not always the easiest to detect and I would be interested in the diagnodent system of detection.
travis hanel <hane0044@tc.umn.edu>
- Friday, October 18, 2002 at 07:24:21 (CDT)
Your paper was very good. Do you know a good way to distinguish incipient lesions from some localized mild fluorosis? Would laser fluorescence help in distinguishing the two?
Thekla Olson <olso1118@tc.umn.edu>
- Thursday, October 17, 2002 at 20:01:04 (CDT)
I have heard some stories of dentists diagnosing a large amount of caries with these new techniques in previously caries inactive patients and wanting to restore the lesions. I think that if the patient is on good recall, there is no need to restore the lesions, similarly to the patient in the example
Aaron D. Imdieke <imdi0012@tc.umn.edu>
- Thursday, October 17, 2002 at 15:37:16 (CDT)
Researching this topic was enjoyable. At this point in our early careers we have experienced the frustration of caries diagnosis and multiple opinions on addressing existing caries. Current literature definitely sees earlier attempts at "removal" of caries as not real treatment.
Brian Barsness <bars0020@umn.edu>
- Thursday, October 17, 2002 at 13:02:19 (CDT)
Gathering information for this paper was actually pretty enjoyable. In the diagnosis and detection section, I learned about, and researched many advancing technology devices and techniques that show a lot of promise. This is very important because without a diagnosis, no treatment can be preformed.
Brent Deragisch <dera0008@tc.umn.edu>
- Thursday, October 17, 2002 at 12:58:05 (CDT)
I'm surprised that we haven't received more information about air abrasion. It is very interesting that this "no anesthetic" technique eliminates objectionable heat sound and vibrations. Any additional information about this would be great!
Ann Thiele <thie0097@tc.umn.edu>
- Wednesday, October 16, 2002 at 18:06:46 (CDT)
Great paper section one! I hope that we will be able to try the DIAGNOdent in the clinic sometime.
Matthew Berg <berg0522@tc.umn.edu>
- Wednesday, October 16, 2002 at 15:29:50 (CDT)
I would like the opportunity to use the DIAGNOdent system in the clinic and see what type of results I get. It was interesting to work with the extracted teeth and the types of readings we were getting vs. how the tooth looked clinically. I still am a bit skeptical, especially since the machine seemed very technique sensitive. I have heard from people who use it in their offices that they really like the system.
Sarah Como <scomo@umn.edu>
- Wednesday, October 16, 2002 at 14:47:28 (CDT)