6 News 08/21 Correlating rotated mandibles with back and knee pain correlation degrees of one or more of the three categories of pain. The study definitely demonstrates the between mandibular rotation and foot position discrepancy which leads to posture compensations of various forms leading to mid- back, low back, and knee pain. Authors: Jay Patel1, Aishwarya Mahajan2, Ajay Kakar3* and Maria Csillag4 1 Principal Investigator, Nashik, India Investigator, Nashik 2 India 3 4 Guide, Mumbai, India Guide and Creator of the Smylist® Concept, Aesthetic Dentist, Budapest, Hungary *Corresponding Author: Ajay Kakar, Guide, Periodontology, Mumbai, India. By Dr. Ajay Kakar A study was carried out to evaluate the correlation between mandibular rotations in patients with a history of mid back pain, lower back pain, and knee pain. The human body is a complex interconnected network that can be observed and understood as an interactive interplay of various components, each playing its unique role in maintaining the functionality of the human body. Human observations have classified components into various systems with their individual to play. A couple of key systems are the musculoskeletal system and the nervous system. these roles The musculoskeletal system has been very aptly described in the Smylist® concept as a spiders web running from the top of the head to the tip of the toes. Working in harmony with signals received from the nervous system, the muscles function by contracting and elongating at the required study was done to find the pre- valence of such conditions con- cerning mid and lower back pain and kneed pain. The study obtained data from 48 subjects in the form of face photographs, photographs of the position of the feet after the Smylist® three jump test, and a detailed Smylist® history form. The face photographs were evaluated and the mandibular rotations were determined and the diagnosis was carried out based on the Smylist® concept. This was then cross-checked with the foot position photographs and the mandibular rotations confirmed. The foot positions were documented only after the three-jump test, which brings the feet into their natural position. the This all mandibular study representative confirms that foot positions discrepancy is seen rotation in cases as postulated by the Smylist® concept. All 48 cases demonstrated the mandibular rotation of varying severities and all of them reported varying The study demonstrated correlation between mandibular rotation and foot position discrepancy which leads to posture compensations of various forms leading to mid-back, low back, and knee pain. (Image: Canva). times to provide locomotion, the ability to eat, speak so on, and so forth. Mandibular rotation is a con- dition that has been defined in the Smylist® concept as a mandible that is shifted from its ideal po- sition due to an uneven rotation of the condyles in a horizontal, saggital, and vertical plane. This rotation may be in any one plane or in more than one plane. The Smylist® concept is a creation of Dr. Maria Csillag which addres- ses dento-facial aesthetics as well as dental function in a very new and unique fashion. The concept also explains how the origin of a variety of systemic situations is due to a “rotated mandible”. This Dental procedures present low risk of aerosol transmission of SARS-CoV-2 aerosol generated by dental instruments is not considered to be infectious, and saliva- contaminated aerosol generated by the use of an instrument in the mouth of an infected patient may be infectious. The study aimed to quantify the aerosol concentration produced during a range of dental procedures and, where it was detected, to separate saliva-contaminated aerosol from that originating from an instrument not contaminated with saliva. A total of 15 procedures, in nine of 41 patients underwent different periodontal, oral surgical, and orthodontic and these were captured using time- stamped protocols. No aerosol was detected the 41 procedures, and only six procedures generated a volume of aerosol that was detectable above background levels. “Examination with dental probe, hand scaling, local anesthetic delivery, routine extraction forceps and/ or elevator), raising a soft-tissue flap, orthodontic bracket removal, alginate impression taking, three- in-one water only, and suturing did not generate detectable aerosol and do not appear to pose an aerosol transmission risk,” the study read. (with It continued: “For the other six procedures where aerosol was detected, the percentage of total procedure time that aerosol was observed was 12.7% for ultrasonic scaling, 19.9% three-in-one air only, 42.9% for three-in-one air + water, 28.6% for high-speed drilling, 32.9% for slow speed drilling and 35.8% for surgical drilling.” for “[Other] procedures, such as ultrasonic scaling, do not appear to generate additional aerosol above that of the instrument itself and do not increase the risk to dentists” – Dr. Mark Gormley, University of Bristol of two A University Bristol press release explained that the authors found that an ultrasonic instrument produced significantly lower aerosol volume than a high-speed dental drill, despite the instruments currently requiring the same precautions. “Also, aerosol produced during the ultrasonic scaling procedure was consistent with the clean aerosol produced from the instrument itself and did not show additional aerosol is produced that could potentially spread COVID-19.” Dr. Tom Dudding, joint first author of the study and restorative dentistry in the Bristol Dental School at the specialty trainee University of Bristol, said in the press release: “Our study confirms much of the guidance around dental procedures deemed as low risk of spreading COVID-19 is correct, but suggests that the ultrasonic instrument could be seen as lower risk than it currently is.” that added Dudding the findings of the study could advocate for a reduction in the precautionary measures that have been put in place during the pandemic and, thereby, allow for the expansion of dental therapy. Dudding singled out these precautionary measures as including fallow times and additional personal protective equipment. Dr. Mark Gormley, senior author of the study and consultant senior lecturer at the Bristol Dental School, said: “[Other] procedures, such as ultrasonic scaling, do not appear to generate additional aerosol above that of the instrument itself and do not increase the risk to dentists, relative to the risk of being near the patient.” The study, titled “A clinical observational analysis of aerosol emissions from dental procedures”, was published online on 12 June 2021 on medRxiv.org. The researchers behind a University of Bristol-led study say that certain dental procedures, such as ultrasonic scaling, do not appear to generate additional aerosol. (Image: DC Studio/Shutterstock) By Jeremy Booth, Dental Tribune International to date BRISTOL, UK: The largest study specifically measuring aerosol generation in dental settings found that many common procedures produced negligible volumes of aerosol. The study is yet to be peer- reviewed; however, according to the authors, the findings support that deems current guidance many dental procedures as posing a low risk of SARS-CoV-2 transmission and suggests that the level of risk associated with the use of ultrasonic instruments could be downgraded. Led by researchers at the University of Bristol, the study that pointed out the existing classification of dental procedures as posing a high or low risk of aerosol transmission was based on the limited evidence that had been available in the early months of the pandemic. “One challenge in aerosol research is separating this salivary- contaminated aerosol from the non- salivary contaminated instrument source,” the authors wrote. They explained that there are three possible sources of aerosol during dental procedures and that not all of them are considered to pose a risk of SARS-CoV-2 transmission. Aerosol generated by the patient— during speech or coughing, for infectious, example—may be