Leopoldo P. Correa’s research while affiliated with Tufts University and other places

Background The etiology of temporomandibular disorders (TMD) is multifactorial, involving a complex interplay of psychological and physiological factors. While salivary biomarkers, particularly cortisol, play an important role in TMD pathophysiology, evidence in the literature is still scarce and inconsistent. Hence, this study aims to evaluate the applicability of salivary cortisol as a potential biomarker for TMD in adults. Methods The Diagnostic Criteria for Temporomandibular Disorders (DC/TMD) were used to accurately diagnose TMD patients. The study included adults, both male and female, aged 18–40 in the TMD group (n = 66) and non TMD participants (n = 66) matched for age and gender. Salivary samples were collected from participants at two time points: early and late morning. Cortisol levels in the samples were quantified using enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA). Statistical analysis was performed using a one-way ANOVA to evaluate the correlations between cortisol levels and the study variables. Tukey’s post-hoc tests were applied to adjust for multiple comparisons. Results Salivary cortisol levels were significantly higher in the TMD group than in the corresponding controls (p = 0.034). In the TMD group, the mean cortisol levels early in the morning were 29.95 ± 75.05 (0-398.64), while the late morning levels were recorded as 4.87 ± 3.96 (0-17.13). In the control group, the mean cortisol levels early in the morning were 10.98 ± 16.83 (2.16–92.90), and late morning mean cortisol levels were 6.15 ± 6.13 (0-20.42). This indicates that the early morning levels of cortisol are higher in TMD patients (p = 0.046). In the subgroup analysis of the TMD, the mean salivary cortisol levels recorded were highest at 82.49 ± 124.34 (8.32-398.64) in patients having disc displacement without reduction with limited mouth opening. Furthermore, the mean salivary cortisol levels in the early morning were statistically higher (84.83 ± 132.80) in males compared to females (9.36 ± 9.01) (p = 0.008) with TMD. Conclusion The result of this study suggests that salivary cortisol could be a potential biomarker for a specific TMD subtype (disc displacement without reduction with limited mouth opening). However, further studies are needed to better understand the role of cortisol biomarker in the underlying pathogenesis of TMD.

Purpose: To verify the effect of sitting posture with and without sole-ground contact on chewing stability and masticatory performance. Methods: Thirty healthy subjects were evaluated. The Conformat was used to analyze the center of sitting pressure (COSP), and the three-dimensional motion analysis system was used to analyze changes in head and trunk postures while subjects remained in a sitting position with and without sole-ground contact. The parameters of masticatory performance and movement were calculated as follows. For evaluating masticatory performance, the amount of glucose extraction (AGE) during chewing of a gummy jelly was measured. For evaluating masticatory movements, the movement of the mandibular incisal point was recorded using the Motion Visi-Trainer V1, and parameters of the stabilities of movement path and rhythm were calculated. Results: Head and trunk sway values and the displacement of COSP were significantly smaller with sole-ground contact than those without soleground contact. The masticatory movement path with sole-ground contact showed less variation in the opening distance and more stable movement path compared to those without sole-ground contact. The AGE was significantly greater with sole-ground contact than that without sole-ground contact. Conclusion: Sitting posture with and without sole-ground contact affects chewing stability and masticatory performance.

Purpose: The purpose of this study was to test the hypothesis in healthy subjects that masticatory movements affect head and trunk sways, and sitting and foot pressure distributions during sitting position. Methods: A total of 30 healthy male subjects with an average age of 25.3 years (range, 22-32 years) were evaluated. The CONFORMatTM and MatScanTM system were used to analyze changes in sitting pressure distribution (center of sitting pressure: COSP) and changes in foot pressure distribution (center of foot pressure: COFP) respectively, and the 3-dimensional motion analysis system was used to analyze changes in head and trunk postures while subjects remained sitting position with rest position, centric occlusion, and chewing. The total trajectory length of COSP/COFP, COSP/COFP area, and head and trunk sway values were compared between the three conditions to evaluate whether masticatory movement affected the stability of head and trunk sways, and sitting and foot pressure distributions. Results: Total trajectory length of COSP and COSP area during chewing were significantly shorter and smaller respectively than it was in rest position and centric occlusion (p < 0.016). Head sway value during chewing was significantly larger than it was in rest position and centric occlusion (p < 0.016). Conclusion: Masticatory movements affect sitting pressure distribution and head movements during sitting position.

Objective: The aim of this retrospective study was to evaluate a Dental Sleep Medicine Mini-Residency (DSMMR) continuing education (CE) program using the Kirkpatrick model. Methods: After receiving ethical approval, data from participants in the 2019-2020 DSMMR CE course were included for the Kirkpatrick evaluation. The analysis was stratified and all the Kirkpatrick levels were integrated: level 1 (satisfaction) was assessed via Likert scale and open-ended questions; level 2 (learning) was evaluated using pretest and posttest knowledge data following Module 1 (M1) and an assessment of multiple-choice questions (MCQs) developed by participants; level 3 (behavior) was evaluated using Likert scale questions; and level 4 (results) was assessed via the percentage of participants who passed the American Board of Dental Sleep Medicine (ABDSM) examination on their first attempt. Results: A total of 90 participants were included in the study. At least 83.1% of participants agreed/strongly agreed with positively worded statements about satisfaction. Knowledge scores significantly increased from pre-M1 to post-M1 (p < 0.001); however, only 15.2% of MCQs were evaluated as well-formulated. At least 88.6% of participants agreed/strongly agreed with positively worded statements about transfer of knowledge/skills to their practice. 91.1% passed the ABDSM examination on their first attempt. Conclusion: The evaluation of the 2019-2020 DSMMR using the Kirkpatrick model suggests its overall positive impact as a training program. The Kirkpatrick model provided information that can be used to improve the quality of a program. Future studies should assess other dental CE programs using the Kirkpatrick model or another evaluation model.

Purpose: Dental education is facing a faculty workforce shortage. Lack of preparation risks faculty, student, and staff morale and is an impediment to institutional growth and innovation. Administrators and faculty must consider strategies to better prepare for, and be successful within, a faculty shortage environment. Methods: We review strategies utilized by health professional institutions that have confronted faculty workforce shortages. Results: These strategies were grouped into four domains reflecting the organizational units that typically direct and initiate change within dental education institutions: budget and finance, human resources, organizational structure, and curricular structure. Recommendations using a four-pronged approach based on these domains have been developed for remaining agile in the face of a faculty workforce shortage. Conclusions: Local needs assessments and strategic planning are the first steps in highlighting institutional strengths and identifying gaps within each of the domains. Faculty development and retention efforts, as well as increasing curricular efficiencies, are essential for success across all domains.

Objective To evaluate the effect of body posture on occlusal contact. Methods A total of 30 healthy subjects were evaluated. T-Scan™ III was used to analyze the center of occlusal force (COF) and occlusal force distribution while subjects remained supine (SP), upright sitting with the head fixed (UP-HFI), upright sitting with the head free (UP-HFR), and natural standing (NS). Results The total trajectory length of COF was significantly longer in NS than in SP, UP-HFI, and UP-HFR. The COF area was significantly larger in UP-HFR than in SP and UP-HFI and also significantly larger in NS than in SP, UP-HFI, and UP-HFR. The anteroposterior occlusal force distribution (AOD) in NS shifted significantly forward, compared to SP, UP-HFI, and UP-HFR. AOD in UP-HFI and UP-HFR shifted significantly forward, compared to the SP position. Conclusion Changes in body posture affect the stability and anteroposterior balance of occlusal contacts.