Jung, Klaus

[["dc.bibliographiccitation.firstpage","547"],["dc.bibliographiccitation.issue","5"],["dc.bibliographiccitation.journal","European Journal of Orthodontics"],["dc.bibliographiccitation.lastpage","555"],["dc.bibliographiccitation.volume","31"],["dc.contributor.author","Knoesel, Michael"],["dc.contributor.author","Jung, Klaus"],["dc.contributor.author","Attin, Thomas"],["dc.contributor.author","Attin, Rengin"],["dc.contributor.author","Kubein-Meesenburg, Dietmar"],["dc.contributor.author","Gripp-Rudolph, Liliam"],["dc.date.accessioned","2018-11-07T11:23:35Z"],["dc.date.available","2018-11-07T11:23:35Z"],["dc.date.issued","2009"],["dc.description.abstract","Lateral cephalograms and corresponding dental casts were obtained from 39 untreated Caucasians (12 males, 27 females; mean age 19.5 years; standard deviation 3.7 years) with occlusal relationships considered to be 'normal'. The upper (U1) and lower (L1) incisors were assessed with reference to the occlusal plane perpendicular which was established on the lateral radiographs, including third order angles (U1TR, L1TR) which were also derived from direct dental cast measurements (U1TA, L1TA). Both single regression and multiple linear regression analysis with stepwise variable selection were performed using third order measurements on casts as the dependent variable and crown axis (U1C, L1C), root axis (U1R, L1R), tip-apex connecting line (U1E, L1E), and radiographic third order measurements as independent variables. Single regression analysis indicated an overall difference of 0.02 degrees between radiographic third order inclination and cast assessment in the maxilla (mandible: -2.83 degrees). A change of 1 degree in radiographic third order inclination would produce a change of 0.65 degrees for U1TA and 0.86 degrees for L1TA assessments. Third order measurements on dental casts can best be explained by a linear combination of U1TR and U1E (maxilla) and of L1TR and L1C (mandible) measurements. This study demonstrates the functional enmeshment between two different third order assessments and the most common incisor features on lateral radiographs. Both methods of third order evaluation show sufficient reliability and are appropriate for routine orthodontic practice."],["dc.identifier.doi","10.1093/ejo/cjp011"],["dc.identifier.isi","000270217900013"],["dc.identifier.pmid","19447839"],["dc.identifier.uri","https://resolver.sub.uni-goettingen.de/purl?gro-2/56227"],["dc.notes.status","zu prüfen"],["dc.notes.submitter","Najko"],["dc.publisher","Oxford Univ Press"],["dc.relation.issn","0141-5387"],["dc.title","Systematic evaluation of the features influencing the accuracy of third order measurements"],["dc.type","journal_article"],["dc.type.internalPublication","yes"],["dc.type.peerReviewed","yes"],["dc.type.status","published"],["dspace.entity.type","Publication"]]

[["dc.bibliographiccitation.firstpage","67"],["dc.bibliographiccitation.issue","2"],["dc.bibliographiccitation.journal","AMERICAN JOURNAL OF DENTISTRY"],["dc.bibliographiccitation.lastpage","72"],["dc.bibliographiccitation.volume","22"],["dc.contributor.author","Knoesel, Michael"],["dc.contributor.author","Attin, Rengin"],["dc.contributor.author","Jung, Klaus"],["dc.contributor.author","Brunner, Edgar"],["dc.contributor.author","Kubein-Meesenburg, Dietmar"],["dc.contributor.author","Attin, Thomas"],["dc.date.accessioned","2018-11-07T08:30:50Z"],["dc.date.available","2018-11-07T08:30:50Z"],["dc.date.issued","2009"],["dc.description.abstract","Purposes: To evaluate the concordance and repeatability of two in vivo methods for dental color assessment and to clarify the influence of different ambient light conditions and subject's head position on the assessed color variables. Methods: Color assessments were performed by two examiners on 16 arbitrarily selected subjects under two different, standardized conditions of illumination and at two different standardized head angulations. CIE (L a b ) data for upper and lower central incisors were recorded in two different ways: (1) by an intra-oral contact dental colorimeter and (2) by processing digital images for performing color calculation using Adobe Photoshop software. The influence of the different ambient conditions on both methods, as well as the concordance of measurements was analyzed statistically using several mixed linear models. Results: Ambient light as a single factor had no significant influence on maxillary L , a and b values, but it did have an effect on mandible assessments. Head angulation variation resulted in significant L value differences using the photo method. The operator had a significant influence on values a and b for the photo method and on a values for the colorimeter method. In fully fit ambient condition, the operator had a significant influence on the segregated L , a , and b values. With dimmed lights, head angulation became significant, but not the operator. Evaluation of segregated L values was error prone in both methods. Comparing both methods, Delta E values did not exceed 2.85 units, indicating that color differences between methods and recorded under varying ambient conditions were well below the sensitivity of the naked eye. (Am J Dent 2009;22:67-72)."],["dc.identifier.isi","000268343900001"],["dc.identifier.pmid","19626967"],["dc.identifier.uri","https://resolver.sub.uni-goettingen.de/purl?gro-2/16988"],["dc.notes.status","zu prüfen"],["dc.notes.submitter","Najko"],["dc.publisher","Mosher & Linder, Inc"],["dc.relation.issn","0894-8275"],["dc.title","Digital image color analysis compared to direct dental CIE colorimeter assessment under different ambient conditions"],["dc.type","journal_article"],["dc.type.internalPublication","yes"],["dc.type.peerReviewed","yes"],["dc.type.status","published"],["dspace.entity.type","Publication"]]