Knösel, Michael

[["dc.bibliographiccitation.firstpage","747"],["dc.bibliographiccitation.issue","4"],["dc.bibliographiccitation.journal","The Angle Orthodontist"],["dc.bibliographiccitation.lastpage","754"],["dc.bibliographiccitation.volume","79"],["dc.contributor.author","Knoesel, Michael"],["dc.contributor.author","Jung, Klaus"],["dc.contributor.author","Gripp-Rudolph, Liliam"],["dc.contributor.author","Attin, Thomas"],["dc.contributor.author","Attin, Rengin"],["dc.contributor.author","Sadat-Khonsari, Reza"],["dc.contributor.author","Kubein-Meesenburg, Dietmar"],["dc.contributor.author","Bauss, Oskar"],["dc.date.accessioned","2018-11-07T08:27:55Z"],["dc.date.available","2018-11-07T08:27:55Z"],["dc.date.issued","2009"],["dc.description.abstract","Objective: To test the null hypothesis that third-order measurements are not correlated to lingual incisor features seen on radiographs. Material and Methods: The lateral headfilms of 38 untreated, norm-occlusion subjects without incisor abrasions or restorations were used for third-order measurements of upper and lower central incisors and assessment of the inclination of four sites suitable for lingual bracket placement with reference to the occlusal plane perpendicular. Lingual sections were determined by the tangents at the incisal fossa (S1), at the transition plateau between incisal fossa and the cingulum (S2), by a constructed line reaching from the incisal tip to the cingulum (S3), and by a tangent at the cingulum convexity (S4). Third-order angles were also assessed on corresponding dental casts using an incisor inclination gauge. Regression analysis was performed using the third-order measurements of both methods as the dependent variables and the inclination of the lingual enamel sections (S1, S2, S3, S4) as the independent variables. Results: The null hypothesis was rejected. For the most common bracket application sites located on the lingual shovel (S1 and S2), third-order inclination changes of 0.4-0.7 degrees are expected for each degree of change in the inclination of the lingual surface. The impact of bracket placement errors on third-order angulation is similar between sections S1 and S2 and the cingulum convexity (S4). Section S3 proved to be least affected by interindividual variation. Conclusion: The third-order measurements are correlated to lingual incisor features. Accordingly, third-order changes resulting from variation in lingual bracket placement can be individually predicted from radiographic assessments. (Angle Orthod. 2009;79:747-754.)"],["dc.identifier.doi","10.2319/072308-385.1"],["dc.identifier.isi","000267712600019"],["dc.identifier.pmid","19537870"],["dc.identifier.purl","https://resolver.sub.uni-goettingen.de/purl?gs-1/5790"],["dc.identifier.uri","https://resolver.sub.uni-goettingen.de/purl?gro-2/16306"],["dc.notes.intern","Merged from goescholar"],["dc.notes.status","zu prüfen"],["dc.notes.submitter","Najko"],["dc.publisher","E H Angle Education Research Foundation, Inc"],["dc.relation.issn","0003-3219"],["dc.rights","Goescholar"],["dc.rights.uri","https://goescholar.uni-goettingen.de/licenses"],["dc.title","Changes in Incisor Third-Order Inclination Resulting from Vertical Variation in Lingual Bracket Placement"],["dc.type","journal_article"],["dc.type.internalPublication","yes"],["dc.type.peerReviewed","yes"],["dc.type.status","published"],["dc.type.version","published_version"],["dspace.entity.type","Publication"]]

[["dc.bibliographiccitation.firstpage","454"],["dc.bibliographiccitation.issue","3"],["dc.bibliographiccitation.journal","The Angle Orthodontist"],["dc.bibliographiccitation.lastpage","461"],["dc.bibliographiccitation.volume","79"],["dc.contributor.author","Knoesel, Michael"],["dc.contributor.author","Jung, Klaus"],["dc.contributor.author","Attin, Thomas"],["dc.contributor.author","Engelke, Wilfried G. H."],["dc.contributor.author","Kubein-Meesenburg, Dietmar"],["dc.contributor.author","Gripp-Rudolph, Liliam"],["dc.contributor.author","Attin, Rengin"],["dc.date.accessioned","2018-11-07T08:30:05Z"],["dc.date.available","2018-11-07T08:30:05Z"],["dc.date.issued","2009"],["dc.description.abstract","Objective: To evaluate the significance of crown-root angles (CRAs) by testing the null hypothesis that there are no significant differences in deviations of third-order angles to axial inclination values between Angle Class II division 2 incisors and a neutral occlusion control sample. Materials and Methods: The study group comprised n(total) = 130 whites with either Angle Class II division 2 (n(1) = 62; group A) or neutral (n(2) = 68; control group B) occlusal relationships. Upper central incisor inclination (U1) was assessed with reference to the cephalometric lines NA and palatal plane (U1NA/deg, U1PP/deg). Craniofacial sagittal and vertical relations were classified using angles SNA, SNB, ANB, and NSL-PP. Third-order angles were derived from corresponding dental cast pairs using an incisor inclination gauge. Welch's two-sample t-tests (alpha-level:.05) were used to test the null hypothesis. Single linear regression was applied to determine third-order angle values as a function of axial inclination values (U1NA, U1PP) or sagittal craniofacial structures (ANB angle), separately for group A and B. Results: The discrepancy between axial inclination (U1NA, U1PP) and third-order angles is significantly different (P <.001) between groups A and B. Regression analysis revealed a simply moderate correlation between third-order measurements and axial inclinations or sagittal craniofacial structures. Conclusion: The hypothesis is rejected. The results of this study warn against the use of identical third-order angles irrespective of diminished CRAs typical for Angle Class II division 2 subjects. Routine CRA assessment may be considered in orthodontic treatment planning of Angle Class II division 2 cases. (Angle Orthod. 2009;79:454-461.)"],["dc.identifier.doi","10.2319/042508-234"],["dc.identifier.isi","000266052200008"],["dc.identifier.pmid","19413389"],["dc.identifier.purl","https://resolver.sub.uni-goettingen.de/purl?gs-1/5785"],["dc.identifier.uri","https://resolver.sub.uni-goettingen.de/purl?gro-2/16807"],["dc.notes.intern","Merged from goescholar"],["dc.notes.status","zu prüfen"],["dc.notes.submitter","Najko"],["dc.relation.issn","0003-3219"],["dc.rights","Goescholar"],["dc.rights.uri","https://goescholar.uni-goettingen.de/licenses"],["dc.title","On the Interaction between Incisor Crown-Root Morphology and Third-Order Angulation"],["dc.type","journal_article"],["dc.type.internalPublication","yes"],["dc.type.peerReviewed","yes"],["dc.type.version","published_version"],["dspace.entity.type","Publication"]]

[["dc.bibliographiccitation.firstpage","532"],["dc.bibliographiccitation.issue","3"],["dc.bibliographiccitation.journal","The Angle Orthodontist"],["dc.bibliographiccitation.lastpage","539"],["dc.bibliographiccitation.volume","81"],["dc.contributor.author","Knoesel, Michael"],["dc.contributor.author","Jung, Klaus"],["dc.date.accessioned","2018-11-07T08:56:38Z"],["dc.date.available","2018-11-07T08:56:38Z"],["dc.date.issued","2011"],["dc.description.abstract","Objective: To assess the informational value, intention, source, and bias of videos related to orthodontics screened by the video-sharing Internet platform You Tube. Methods: You Tube (www.youtube.com) was scanned in July 2010 for orthodontics-related videos using an adequately defined search term. Each of the first 30 search results of the scan was categorized with the system-generated sorts \"by relevance\" and \"most viewed\" (total: 60). These were rated independently by three assessors, who completed a questionnaire for each video. The data were analyzed statistically using Friedman's test for dependent samples, Kendall's tau, and Fleiss's kappa. Results: The You Tube scan produced 5140 results. There was a wide variety of information about orthodontics available on You Tube, and the highest proportion of videos was found to originate from orthodontic patients. These videos were also the most viewed ones. The informational content of most of the videos was generally judged to be low, with a rather poor to inadequate representation of the orthodontic profession, although a moderately pro-orthodontics stance prevailed. It was noticeable that the majority of contributions of orthodontists to You Tube constituted advertising. This tendency was not viewed positively by the majority of You Tube users, as was evident in the divergence in the proportions when sorting by \"relevance\" and \"most viewed.\" Conclusion: In the light of the very large number of people using the Internet as their primary source of information, orthodontists should recognize the importance of You Tube and similar social media Web sites in the opinion-forming process, especially in the case of adolescents. (Angle Orthod. 2011;81:532-539.)"],["dc.identifier.doi","10.2319/091710-541.1"],["dc.identifier.isi","000289761800025"],["dc.identifier.pmid","21261492"],["dc.identifier.purl","https://resolver.sub.uni-goettingen.de/purl?gs-1/8017"],["dc.identifier.uri","https://resolver.sub.uni-goettingen.de/purl?gro-2/23198"],["dc.notes.intern","Merged from goescholar"],["dc.notes.status","zu prüfen"],["dc.notes.submitter","Najko"],["dc.publisher","E H Angle Education Research Foundation, Inc"],["dc.relation.issn","0003-3219"],["dc.rights","Goescholar"],["dc.rights.uri","https://goescholar.uni-goettingen.de/licenses"],["dc.title","Informational value and bias of videos related to orthodontics screened on a video-sharing Web site"],["dc.type","journal_article"],["dc.type.internalPublication","yes"],["dc.type.peerReviewed","yes"],["dc.type.status","published"],["dc.type.version","published_version"],["dspace.entity.type","Publication"]]

[["dc.bibliographiccitation.artnumber","31"],["dc.bibliographiccitation.issue","1"],["dc.bibliographiccitation.journal","Head & Face Medicine"],["dc.bibliographiccitation.volume","11"],["dc.contributor.author","Wiechmann, Dirk"],["dc.contributor.author","Vu, Julius"],["dc.contributor.author","Schwestka-Polly, Rainer"],["dc.contributor.author","Helms, Hans-Joachim"],["dc.contributor.author","Knösel, Michael"],["dc.date.accessioned","2019-07-09T11:41:51Z"],["dc.date.available","2019-07-09T11:41:51Z"],["dc.date.issued","2015"],["dc.description.abstract","Abstract Objective To assess the types and frequencies of clinical complications experienced when using a modified lingual Herbst appliance and to compare these with those associated with conventional Herbst appliances reported in the literature. Methods Treatment records for 35 consecutive subjects treated during the observation period from October 2013 to August 2014 who received a combination of a lingual appliance and a modified Herbst appliance (WIN, DW LingualSystems) were assessed for complications linked to Herbst treatment phase. Complications were analyzed descriptively, and complication-free intervals were calculated using Kaplan-Meier plots. To enable a comparison with data reported in the literature, the cumulative treatment time for all subjects was divided by the total number of complications. Results 71.4 % of Herbst treatments were free from complications (n = 25). Complications were seen on 13 occasions (8 instances of Herbst attachment loosening, 5 L-Pin fractures). Most of these complications could be fixed chair side utilizing simple clinical measures. Considering all complications as identical statistical events, the percentage of treatments free from complications would be 88 % for 100 days, 70 % for 200 days and 56.8 % for 300 days. For severe complications, the averaged complication-free treatment interval was found to be 27.8 months. Conclusion In terms of clinical sturdiness, and taking into consideration the step-wise mode of activation used here as well as the differences in the design of the various Herbst appliances, the WIN-Herbst appliance was found to be superior to comparable vestibular Herbst appliances, as well as the banded Herbst appliance belonging to the preceding generation of customized lingual systems. Success in treatment of non-compliant Angle Class II correction is considered to have better predictability using the modified anchorage strategy of the WIN-Herbst appliance."],["dc.identifier.doi","10.1186/s13005-015-0088-3"],["dc.identifier.pmid","26353793"],["dc.identifier.purl","https://resolver.sub.uni-goettingen.de/purl?gs-1/12484"],["dc.identifier.uri","https://resolver.sub.uni-goettingen.de/purl?gro-2/58533"],["dc.language.iso","en"],["dc.notes.intern","Merged from goescholar"],["dc.rights","CC BY 4.0"],["dc.rights.uri","https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0"],["dc.title","Clinical complications during treatment with a modified Herbst appliance in combination with a lingual appliance"],["dc.type","journal_article"],["dc.type.internalPublication","yes"],["dc.type.version","published_version"],["dspace.entity.type","Publication"]]

[["dc.bibliographiccitation.issue","1"],["dc.bibliographiccitation.journal","Head & Face Medicine"],["dc.bibliographiccitation.volume","15"],["dc.contributor.author","Knösel, Michael"],["dc.contributor.author","Vogel Alvarez, Roberto"],["dc.contributor.author","Blanck-Lubarsch, Moritz"],["dc.contributor.author","Helms, Hans-Joachim"],["dc.date.accessioned","2020-12-10T18:39:01Z"],["dc.date.available","2020-12-10T18:39:01Z"],["dc.date.issued","2019"],["dc.identifier.doi","10.1186/s13005-019-0204-x"],["dc.identifier.eissn","1746-160X"],["dc.identifier.purl","https://resolver.sub.uni-goettingen.de/purl?gs-1/16713"],["dc.identifier.uri","https://resolver.sub.uni-goettingen.de/purl?gro-2/77517"],["dc.language.iso","en"],["dc.notes.intern","DOI Import GROB-354"],["dc.notes.intern","Merged from goescholar"],["dc.rights","CC BY 4.0"],["dc.rights.uri","https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0"],["dc.title","Comparison of potential long-term costs for preventive dentistry treatment of post-orthodontic labial versus lingual enamel cavitations and esthetically relevant white-spot lesions: a simulation study with different scenarios"],["dc.type","journal_article"],["dc.type.internalPublication","yes"],["dc.type.version","published_version"],["dspace.entity.type","Publication"]]

[["dc.bibliographiccitation.firstpage","1036"],["dc.bibliographiccitation.issue","6"],["dc.bibliographiccitation.journal","The Angle Orthodontist"],["dc.bibliographiccitation.lastpage","1044"],["dc.bibliographiccitation.volume","80"],["dc.contributor.author","Knosel, Michael"],["dc.contributor.author","Mattysek, Simone"],["dc.contributor.author","Jung, Klaus"],["dc.contributor.author","Sadat-Khonsari, Reza"],["dc.contributor.author","Kubein-Meesenburg, Dietmar"],["dc.contributor.author","Bauss, Oskar"],["dc.contributor.author","Ziebolz, Dirk"],["dc.date.accessioned","2018-11-07T08:37:13Z"],["dc.date.available","2018-11-07T08:37:13Z"],["dc.date.issued","2010"],["dc.description.abstract","Objective To evaluate impulse debonding compared to three conventional methods for bracket removal in relation to the damage caused to the enamel surface Materials and Methods Ninety-six osteotomed third molars were randomly assigned to two study groups (n = 48) for bracket bonding with either a composite adhesive system (CAS) or a glass-ionomeric cement (GIG) These two groups were then each randomly divided into four subgroups (n = 12) according to the method of debonding using (1) bracket removal pliers, (2) a side-cutter, (3) a lift-off debracketing instrument, or (4) an air pressure pulse device Following debonding and corresponding postprocessing with either a finishing bur (CAS) or ultrasound (GIG), the enamel surfaces were assessed for damage, adhesive residues, and the need for postprocessing using scanning electron microscopy and the Adhesive Remnant Index, and the surfaces were compared in terms of mode of removal and type of adhesive using Fisher's exact test (alpha = 5%) Results No significant differences were found between the two different types of adhesives (CAS GIG) in terms of the amount of damage to the enamel Portions of enamel damage were found for impulse debonding/0%

[["dc.bibliographiccitation.firstpage","649"],["dc.bibliographiccitation.issue","4"],["dc.bibliographiccitation.journal","The Angle Orthodontist"],["dc.bibliographiccitation.lastpage","655"],["dc.bibliographiccitation.volume","80"],["dc.contributor.author","Knoesel, Michael"],["dc.contributor.author","Mattysek, Simone"],["dc.contributor.author","Jung, Klaus"],["dc.contributor.author","Kubein-Meesenburg, Dietmar"],["dc.contributor.author","Sadat-Khonsari, Reza"],["dc.contributor.author","Ziebolz, Dirk"],["dc.date.accessioned","2018-11-07T08:41:27Z"],["dc.date.available","2018-11-07T08:41:27Z"],["dc.date.issued","2010"],["dc.description.abstract","Aim: To test the null hypothesis that there are no significant differences in the reusability of debonded brackets with regard to debonding technique and adhesive used. Method: Ninety-six osteotomed third molars were randomly assigned to two study groups (n = 48) for bonding of a 0.018-inch bracket (Ormesh, Ormco) with either a composite adhesive (MonoLok2; RMO) or a glass ionomer cement (GIC; Fuji Ortho LC;GC). Each of these two groups were then randomly divided into four subgroups (n = 12) according to the method of debonding using (1) bracket removal pliers (BRP; Dentaurum), (2) a side cutter (SC; Dentaurum), (3) a lift-off debracketing instrument (LODI; 3M-Unitek), or (4) an air pressure pulse device (Corona Flex; KaVo). The brackets were subsequently assessed visually for reusability and reworkability with 2x magnification and by pull testing with a 0.017- x 0.025-inch steel archwire. The proportions of reusable brackets were individually compared in terms of mode of removal and with regard to adhesives using the Fisher exact test (alpha = 5%). Results: The null hypothesis was rejected. Not taking into account the debonding method, brackets bonded with GIC were judged to a significant extent (81%; n = 39; P<.01) to be reworkable compared with those bonded with composite (56%; n = 27). All brackets in both adhesive groups removed with either the LODI or the Corona Flex were found to be reusable, whereas 79% (46%) of the brackets removed with the BRP (SC) were not. The proportion of reusable brackets differed significantly between modes of removal (P<.01). Conclusion: With regard to bracket reusability, the SC and the BRP cannot be recommended for debonding brackets, especially in combination with a composite adhesive. (Angle Orthod. 2010;80:649-655.)"],["dc.identifier.doi","10.2319/102809-605.1"],["dc.identifier.isi","000279218700007"],["dc.identifier.purl","https://resolver.sub.uni-goettingen.de/purl?gs-1/6861"],["dc.identifier.uri","https://resolver.sub.uni-goettingen.de/purl?gro-2/19472"],["dc.notes.intern","Merged from goescholar"],["dc.notes.status","zu prüfen"],["dc.notes.submitter","Najko"],["dc.publisher","E H Angle Education Research Foundation, Inc"],["dc.relation.issn","0003-3219"],["dc.rights","Goescholar"],["dc.rights.uri","https://goescholar.uni-goettingen.de/licenses"],["dc.title","Suitability of orthodontic brackets for rebonding and reworking following removal by air pressure pulses and conventional debracketing techniques"],["dc.type","journal_article"],["dc.type.internalPublication","yes"],["dc.type.peerReviewed","yes"],["dc.type.status","published"],["dc.type.version","published_version"],["dspace.entity.type","Publication"]]

[["dc.bibliographiccitation.artnumber","46"],["dc.bibliographiccitation.journal","Head & face medicine"],["dc.bibliographiccitation.volume","10"],["dc.contributor.author","Knösel, Michael"],["dc.contributor.author","Klang, Elisabeth"],["dc.contributor.author","Helms, Hans-Joachim"],["dc.contributor.author","Wiechmann, Dirk"],["dc.date.accessioned","2015-06-03T13:07:53Z"],["dc.date.accessioned","2021-10-27T13:20:16Z"],["dc.date.available","2015-06-03T13:07:53Z"],["dc.date.available","2021-10-27T13:20:16Z"],["dc.date.issued","2014"],["dc.description.abstract","INTRODUCTION: The occurrence of side-effects of fixed orthodontic therapy, such as white-spot lesions and root resorption, are known to be significantly more frequent with increasing duration of treatment. Multi-bracket treatment should be as short as possible, in order to minimize the risks of collateral damage to teeth. The aim of this non-randomized clinical trial was to compare treatment duration with each of two types of customized lingual orthodontic appliances (Incognito, 3 M-Unitek; WIN, DW LingualSystems), taking into account treatment complexity. The null-hypothesis was that there would be no significant difference in active orthodontic treatment duration between them. METHODS: Of 402 potentially eligible participants, a population sample of n = 376 subjects (n(Incognito) = 220; n(WIN) = 156; m/f 172/204; mean age ± SD 17.3 ± 7.7Y) treated in one orthodontic center (Bad Essen, Germany) with completely customized lingual appliances in upper and lower permanent dental arches was recruited with the inclusion criterion of initiated and completed lingual multi-bracket treatment within the assessment period of April 1st 2010 - Nov 30, 2013, and the exclusion criterion of less than 24 bracketed teeth. We used four-factorial ANOVA to assess the impact of the following factors: initial degree of severity of malocclusion (mild to moderate, S1; severe, S2), appliance type (Incognito; WIN), sex, and age group (<=16; >16 Y) on the duration of lingual multi-bracket treatment. RESULTS: Overall, mean treatment duration was 21.7 (SD 7.2) months, which was significantly shorter for WIN for both sub-groups of treatment complexity (S1: 17.96 mo; S2: 20.49 mo) compared to Incognito (S1: 22.7 mo; S2: 29.79 mo). ANOVA revealed a significant influence of the main effects 'appliance type', and 'severity', independent of each other. Therefore, the null-hypothesis was rejected. CONCLUSION: In terms of treatment duration, the WIN appliance performed significantly better than the Incognito appliance. Consequently, subjects treated with the WIN appliance are expected to be exposed to lower risks of the typical side-effects associated with longer multi-bracket treatment durations, such as root resorption and enamel decalcification."],["dc.format.extent","12"],["dc.identifier.doi","10.1186/1746-160X-10-46"],["dc.identifier.pmid","25361639"],["dc.identifier.purl","https://resolver.sub.uni-goettingen.de/purl?gs-1/11842"],["dc.identifier.uri","https://resolver.sub.uni-goettingen.de/purl?gro-2/91952"],["dc.language.iso","en"],["dc.notes.intern","Migrated from goescholar"],["dc.relation.issn","1746-160X"],["dc.relation.orgunit","Universitätsmedizin Göttingen"],["dc.rights","CC BY 4.0"],["dc.rights.uri","https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0"],["dc.subject.mesh","Adolescent"],["dc.subject.mesh","Female"],["dc.subject.mesh","Follow-Up Studies"],["dc.subject.mesh","Humans"],["dc.subject.mesh","Male"],["dc.subject.mesh","Malocclusion"],["dc.subject.mesh","Orthodontic Appliance Design"],["dc.subject.mesh","Orthodontic Brackets"],["dc.subject.mesh","Retrospective Studies"],["dc.subject.mesh","Time Factors"],["dc.subject.mesh","Treatment Outcome"],["dc.title","Lingual orthodontic treatment duration: performance of two different completely customized multi-bracket appliances (Incognito and WIN) in groups with different treatment complexities."],["dc.type","journal_article"],["dc.type.internalPublication","yes"],["dc.type.peerReviewed","yes"],["dc.type.version","published_version"],["dspace.entity.type","Publication"]]

[["dc.bibliographiccitation.artnumber","11"],["dc.bibliographiccitation.issue","1"],["dc.bibliographiccitation.journal","Head & Face Medicine"],["dc.bibliographiccitation.volume","11"],["dc.contributor.author","Knösel, Michael"],["dc.contributor.author","Ellenberger, David"],["dc.contributor.author","Göldner, Yvonne"],["dc.contributor.author","Sandoval, Paulo"],["dc.contributor.author","Wiechmann, Dirk"],["dc.date.accessioned","2019-07-09T11:41:45Z"],["dc.date.available","2019-07-09T11:41:45Z"],["dc.date.issued","2015"],["dc.description.abstract","Background Sealant application during fixed appliances orthodontic treatment for enamel protection is common, however, reliable data on its durability in vivo are rare. Objective This study aims at assessing the durability of a sealant (OpalSeal, Ultradent) for protection against white-spot lesion formation in orthodontic patients over 26 weeks in vivo, taking into account the provision or absence of an adequate oral hygiene. We tested the null hypothesis of (1) no significant abatement of the sealant after 26 weeks in fixed orthodontic treatment compared to baseline, and (2) no significant influence of the factor of brushing and oral hygiene (as screened by approximal plaque index, API) on the abatement of the sealant. Methods Integrity and abatement of OpalSeal applicated directly following bracketing was assessed in thirty-six consecutive patients (nteeth = 796) undergoing orthodontic treatment with fixed appliances (male/female12/24; mean age/SD 14.4/1.33 Y). Assessment of the fluorescing sealant preservation was by a black-light lamp, using a classification that was concepted in analogy to the ARI index: (3, sealant completely preserved; 2= > 50% preserved; 1 = <50%; 0 = no sealant observable) immediately following application (Baseline, T0), after 2 (T1), 8 (T2), 14 (T3), 20 (T4) and 26 weeks (T5). API was assessed at T0 and T1. Statistical analysis was by non-parametric repeated measures ANOVA (α = 5%, power >80%). Results At baseline, 43.4% of teeth had a positive API. Oral hygiene deteriorated after bracketing (T1, 53%) significantly. Null hypothesis (1) was rejected, while (2) was accepted: Mean values of both the well brushed and non-brushed anterior teeth undercut the score “1” at T3 (week 14). Despite a slightly better preservation of the sealer before and after T3 in not-sufficiently brushed (API-positive) teeth, this finding was statistically not significant. Conclusion One single application of OpalSeal is unlikely to last throughout the entire fixed appliance treatment stage. On average, re-application of the sealant can be expected to be necessary after 3.5 months (week 14) in treatment."],["dc.identifier.doi","10.1186/s13005-015-0069-6"],["dc.identifier.purl","https://resolver.sub.uni-goettingen.de/purl?gs-1/12304"],["dc.identifier.uri","https://resolver.sub.uni-goettingen.de/purl?gro-2/58503"],["dc.language.iso","en"],["dc.notes.intern","Merged from goescholar"],["dc.rights","CC BY 4.0"],["dc.rights.uri","https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0"],["dc.title","In-vivo durability of a fluoride-releasing sealant (OpalSeal) for protection against white-spot lesion formation in orthodontic patients"],["dc.type","journal_article"],["dc.type.internalPublication","yes"],["dc.type.version","published_version"],["dspace.entity.type","Publication"]]

[["dc.bibliographiccitation.firstpage","165"],["dc.bibliographiccitation.issue","2"],["dc.bibliographiccitation.journal","Clinical Oral Investigations"],["dc.bibliographiccitation.lastpage","176"],["dc.bibliographiccitation.volume","15"],["dc.contributor.author","Engelke, Wilfried G. H."],["dc.contributor.author","Jung, Klaus"],["dc.contributor.author","Knoesel, Michael"],["dc.date.accessioned","2018-11-07T08:57:53Z"],["dc.date.available","2018-11-07T08:57:53Z"],["dc.date.issued","2011"],["dc.description.abstract","Oral posture is considered to have a major influence on the development and reoccurrence of malocclusion. A biofunctional model was tested with the null hypotheses that (1) there are no significant differences between pressures during different oral functions and (2) between pressure measurements in different oral compartments in order to substantiate various postural conditions at rest by intra-oral pressure dynamics. Atmospheric pressure monitoring was simultaneously carried out with a digital manometer in the vestibular inter-occlusal space (IOS) and at the palatal vault (sub-palatal space, SPS). Twenty subjects with normal occlusion were evaluated during the open-mouth condition (OC), gently closed lips (semi-open compartment condition, SC), with closed compartments after the generation of a negative pressure (CCN) and swallowing (SW). Pressure curve characteristics were compared between the different measurement phases (OC, SC, CCN, SW) as well as between the two compartments (IOS, SPS) using analysis of variance and Wilcoxon matched-pairs tests adopting a significance level of alpha = 0.05. Both null hypotheses were rejected. Average pressures (IOS, SPS) in the experimental phases were 0.0, -0.08 (OC); -0.16, -1.0 (SC); -48.79, -81.86 (CCN); and -29.25, -62.51 (SW) mbar. CCN plateau and peak characteristics significantly differed between the two compartments SPS and IOS. These results indicate the formation of two different intra-oral functional anatomical compartments which provide a deeper understanding of orofacial biofunctions and explain previous observations of negative intra-oral pressures at rest."],["dc.identifier.doi","10.1007/s00784-009-0367-0"],["dc.identifier.isi","000288256200005"],["dc.identifier.pmid","20127264"],["dc.identifier.purl","https://resolver.sub.uni-goettingen.de/purl?gs-1/6647"],["dc.identifier.uri","https://resolver.sub.uni-goettingen.de/purl?gro-2/23511"],["dc.notes.intern","Merged from goescholar"],["dc.notes.status","zu prüfen"],["dc.notes.submitter","Najko"],["dc.publisher","Springer"],["dc.publisher.place","Heidelberg"],["dc.relation.issn","1432-6981"],["dc.rights","Goescholar"],["dc.rights.uri","https://goescholar.uni-goettingen.de/licenses"],["dc.title","Intra-oral compartment pressures: a biofunctional model and experimental measurements under different conditions of posture"],["dc.type","journal_article"],["dc.type.internalPublication","yes"],["dc.type.peerReviewed","yes"],["dc.type.status","published"],["dc.type.version","published_version"],["dspace.entity.type","Publication"]]