CATEGORY AUSTRALASIAN DENTIST53 EVENTS poses danger, adhering to a linear non-threshold model where even minimal exposure is considered risky. However, there’s a developing viewpoint that suggests there might be a threshold below which radiation is harmless. Consequently, there’s a reevaluation of the concept of applying the ALARA (As Low As Reasonably Achievable) principles. I consider this reassessment a positive development. Regarding virtual visibility for endodontic diagnostic work, this debate is predominantly occurring within the medical sphere. ey are discussing radiation doses ranging from three to 50 millisieverts as being safe. In dental practice, we employ 15 to 50 microsieverts for dental CT scans, which is a thousand times lower than the proposed safe limit. is leads me to believe that the evidence pertaining to the risks posed to patients by dental CT scans is somewhat outdated. In response to your question, I foresee that, in the next few years, some of these restrictions might begin to be relaxed as we reevaluate the risks associated with low-dose radiation exposure.” FDI WDC Presenter: Prof Hien Chi Ngo (Australia) Topic: e Minamata Convention and direct restorative options Can you share with us why you chose to focus on “ e Minamata Convention and direct restorative options” in your presentation? What led you to this particular topic? I selected this topic because I realised that the European Union is on the verge of voting to ban amalgam by 2025, which is just two years away. I don’t believe we have a clear answer to the question of what can replace amalgam. It depends on the clinical environment. If you can control moisture and your clinical working conditions, alternatives like composite and glass ionomer seem feasible. However, in rural areas or developing countries where infrastructure is lacking, a material that is easy to handle and cost-e ective becomes crucial. I believe we haven’t yet found that material. erefore, we need to engage in discussions and provide guidance to manufacturers on the properties and characteristics such a material should possess before it can be considered a true alternative to amalgam. Can you provide more details about your earlier statement regarding GICs and their potential role? Currently, we know that if you have an ideal glass ionomer cement (GIC) and you treat it correctly, it performs exceptionally well. e key di erence between GIC and composite resin is that GIC is water-based, while composite resin is inherently hydrophobic and does not tolerate moisture. erefore, in environments where ideal conditions are not met, and moisture control is challenging, GIC becomes a better material choice than composite resin. Composite resin can work e ectively, but it has speci c requirements that must be met for optimal performance. In contrast, glass ionomer cement is technique-tolerant and easy to work with. We also have extensive long-term clinical experience with GIC, demonstrating its reliability. Considering these factors, I would say that GIC has more potential as an amalgam replacement than composite resin. However, I want to clarify that GIC alone may not entirely replace amalgam. FDI WDC Presenter: Prof Ki-Tae Koo (South Korea) Topic: Alveolar ridge preservation in compromised extraction sockets Why did you choose this topic for the FDI Congress, and why does it hold particular signi cance? When I began my career in teaching and research at the Seoul National University, I started to delve into the healing of extraction sockets. We began investigating what happens after tooth extraction, focusing on dimensional changes and socket healing. Some sockets exhibited excellent healing, while others did not. is piqued our curiosity, leading us to explore erratically healing sockets – those that did not heal on their own despite various e orts. Our research journey encompassed preclinical and clinical studies on erratically healing sockets, ultimately leading to ridge preservation procedures. When you perform ridge preservation immediately after tooth extraction, you capitalise on greater healing potential and predictable outcomes. It’s important to note that I wouldn’t recommend ridge preservation in sockets that would heal naturally. at’s a de nite no-no. However, for sockets that show signs of erratically healing, ridge preservation procedures can save time for both the patient and the practitioner while maintaining a strong patient-dentist relationship. Our journey began with socket biology, delving into clinical procedures for erratically healing sockets, and now we’re focusing on infected and compromised sockets. We aim to understand the characteristics of compromised sockets, how they heal, and how we can overcome the associated challenges. My response to this challenge is a resounding yes – predictability is high for single sockets. Based on our success, we’re gradually expanding our approach to encompass multiple extractions and pockets. In the long run, this approach may potentially reshape the paradigm of guided bone regeneration. Typically, after extraction, we allow sockets to heal without intervention, resulting in the loss of soft and hard tissues, along with dimensions such as volume and width. Our goal is to prevent this loss by preserving what’s present at the time of extraction. In summary, this approach simpli es the process for everyone involved, provided we can e ectively control infection. FDI WDC Presenter: Prof Kazuhiko Nakano (Japan) Topic: Streptococcus mutans causes systemic diseases In your presentation on “Streptococcus mutans causing systemic diseases,” you highlighted the connection between oral health and systemic health. Can
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MTc3NDk3Mw==