Please can use the “Oral & Poster Registration” for uploading your Abstract, in the ICOS 2016 official website.
General submission rules
Abstract sections for Original Study Abstracts
Abstract title must be less than 10 words. The initial letter of the title must be capitalized. It should express the researches essence (concise summary) and should convince the reader that the topic is important, relevant, and innovative.
Aim or purpose
In one brief sentence, provide the rational for the investigation and/or the question to be answered.
Materials and methods
The experimental conditions should be reported briefly (i.e. age group, nature of the animals, sex, and approval from the Ethics Committee at the presenter’s institution). The clinical approach should be precise, and the period of time studied taken into account in the interpretation. The methods used should also be clearly indicated (i.e. image analysis, biochemical data, histological, immune-histological or molecular probes used for the analysis of the data, statistical significance).
The results should be stated in a maximum of three sentences.
This is any conclusion(s) that can be drawn from the presentation. This final statement is crucial because it supports the scientific value of the poster.
Abstract sections for Case Report Abstracts
Abstract title must be less than 10 words. The initial letter of the title must be capitalized. It should express the researches essence (concise summary) and should convince the reader that the topic is important, relevant, and innovative. It is not necessary to describe everything about the case in the title.
The case report abstract begins with a short introduction. It describes the context of the case and demonstrates its relevance or importance.
Case Reports needs to represent treatment (new or novel) approaches to dealing with specific clinical problems. When reporting the case, comply the essential guidelines of medical/dental communication; describe in sequence the medical and/or dental history, physical examination, investigative study (studies), and the progress and outcome. Product trade names used in the case treatment must be accompanied by a generic term, and followed by the manufacturer in parentheses.
The principal objective of the discussion is to review why decisions were made and summarize the lesson from the case. Clinical Considerations should be included by a brief description of the clinical materials and techniques employed. Not uncommonly, reports from the literature, or their absence, are cited that either directly support or contradict the findings of the case. The best-case report abstracts are those that give a small number of learning points in clear and concise language.
In a few sentences, the clinical importance and implications of the research or clinical technique should be discussed and included, and if applicable, its relevance to clinical dentistry.
Example for Abstract preparation (This paper was presented in IAPD 2013 Congress-Seoul, KOREA)
Evaluation of clinical efficacy of indirect posterior composites in children
Alp Erdin KOYUTURK1, Bilal OZMEN1, Ugur TOKAY1*, Nuray TULOGLU2, Mustafa Erhan SARI1
1Department of Pediatric Dentistry, Ondokuz Mayis University Faculty of Dentistry, Samsun, Turkey;
2Department of Pediatric Dentistry, Eskisehir Osmangazi University, Faculty of Dentistry, Eskisehir, Turkey
Aim: The purpose of this study was to evaluate the clinical effectiveness of indirect composite restorations in the permanent molar teeth with excessive material loss, and root canal treated of the child patients.
Materials & Methods: Molar teeth of 29 child patients were applied root canal treatment. Sixteen molar teeth were restored with an indirect composite resin restoration and 13 molar teeth were restored with posterior composite resin restoration. The success of the restorations was evaluated according to USPHS criteria, photo images after staining with basic fuchsin and radiographs data for 2 years. The data obtained from the groups were compared by using the Mann–Whitney U test and Wilcoxon signed rank test.
Results: When the clinical and X-ray data were evaluated, we did not observe statistically significant differences between the poster- ior and the indirect composites (P > 0.05). However, when the photos taken of the patients after staining with basic fuchsin were evaluated, we found that posterior composites had an increased staining in the marginal edge of the restorations after the 6 months depending on the time (P < 0.05).
Conclusion: When it considered difficulties in the restoration of permanent teeth with root canal treatment and with the excessive material loss in child patient, indirect restorations may be seen beneficial.
Keywords: excessive material loss, indirect composite, inlay, posterior composite, root-canal treatment.
(*Presenter should be written in Bold.)