ORCID Profile
0000-0002-5416-8322
Does something not look right? The information on this page has been harvested from data sources that may not be up to date. We continue to work with information providers to improve coverage and quality. To report an issue, use the Feedback Form.
Publisher: Wiley
Date: 23-08-2021
DOI: 10.1111/CLR.13836
Abstract: This study aimed to determine whether distally angulating an implant is a successful strategy to avoid the maxillary sinus and the need for bone augmentation, while increasing the anterior‐posterior (A‐P) implant distribution in the edentulous maxilla. In 115 patients with edentulous maxillae, virtual implant planning was performed utilizing cone‐beam computer tomographs. Axial (8 mm length) and tilted (12 mm length) dental implants with 30‐degree and 45‐degree angulation were virtually positioned to avoid entering the maxillary sinus, while maximizing A‐P distribution. Measurements were made between the tilted and axial implants to assess the change in A‐P distribution of implants at the implant and abutment levels. Forty‐seven sites (20.4%) were not able to have either treatment modality with insufficient bone for implant placement. Axial implants were placed more distally than 45‐degree and 30‐degree tilted implants in 24% and 42% of sites, respectively. The average change in A‐P spread measured at the implant level, for 30‐ and 45‐degree tilted implants was −0.25 mm (95% CI −0.76, 0.26) and 1.9 mm (95% CI 1.4, 2.3), respectively. When measured from the center of each multi‐unit abutment the average increase in A‐P distances for tilted implants appears larger in the 30‐degree and 45‐degree groups by 0.97 mm and 1.74 mm, respectively compared to measurements at the implant level. Angulating 12 mm implants provides a limited increase in A‐P distribution of implants in edentulous rehabilitation in most situations. In certain patients, the use of 8mm axial implants may provide a greater A‐P spread.
Publisher: American Chemical Society (ACS)
Date: 27-10-2022
Abstract: The contamination of soil with organic pollutants has been accelerated by agricultural and industrial development and poses a major threat to global ecosystems and human health. Various chemical and physical techniques have been developed to remediate soils contaminated with organic pollutants, but challenges related to cost, efficacy, and toxic byproducts often limit their sustainability. Fortunately, phytoremediation, achieved through the use of plants and associated microbiomes, has shown great promise for tackling environmental pollution this technology has been tested both in the laboratory and in the field. Plant-microbe interactions further promote the efficacy of phytoremediation, with plant growth-promoting bacteria (PGPB) often used to assist the remediation of organic pollutants. However, the efficiency of microbe-assisted phytoremediation can be impeded by (i) high concentrations of secondary toxins, (ii) the absence of a suitable sink for these toxins, (iii) nutrient limitations, (iv) the lack of continued release of microbial inocula, and (v) the lack of shelter or porous habitats for planktonic organisms. In this regard, biochar affords unparalleled positive attributes that make it a suitable bacterial carrier and soil health enhancer. We propose that several barriers can be overcome by integrating plants, PGPB, and biochar for the remediation of organic pollutants in soil. Here, we explore the mechanisms by which biochar and PGPB can assist plants in the remediation of organic pollutants in soils, and thereby improve soil health. We analyze the cost-effectiveness, feasibility, life cycle, and practicality of this integration for sustainable restoration and management of soil.
Publisher: Wiley
Date: 28-10-2022
DOI: 10.1111/CLR.14009
Abstract: Registration of intra‐oral surface scans to cone beam computer tomography (CBCT) is critical in the digital workflow for static computer‐aided implant surgery (sCAIS). This study aimed to assess the impact of CBCT field of view (FoV) on the precision of digital intra‐oral scan registration. Cone beam computer tomography data and intra‐oral scans from 20 patients were included. Small FoV CBCT's were created by digitally segmenting a large FoV into three sextants. Virtual implant planning was performed. Digital intra‐oral scans were repeatedly registered onto their corresponding large and small FoV CBCT datasets. The distances and angulations between the matching implant positions of each repeated registration were used to determine the precision of the registration process. Wilcoxon Signed Rank Paired Tests were used to compare the differences between large FoV and small FoV. The threshold for statistical significance was set at p = .05. Differences in 3D implant position based on the registration precision between small FoV and large FoV present at both the implant entry point (0.37 ± 0.25 mm vs 0.35 ± 0.23 mm, p = .482) and implant tip (0.49 ± 0.34 mm vs 0.37 ± 0.24 mm, p .001). Differences in overall angular precision were observed between small FOV and large FoV (1.43 ± 1.36° vs 0.51 ± 0.38°, p .001). CBCT with a small FoV is accompanied by greater precision errors in intra‐oral scan registration. However, when sufficient well‐distributed teeth are visible in small FoV CBCT, the precision of digital intra‐oral scan registration appears to be within clinically acceptable limits for sCAIS.
No related grants have been discovered for Faris Jamjoom.