|
But that's about to change. Experts in aerospace engineering at the Georgia Tech Research Institute (GTRI) are taking on dentistry because of what the two fields – flight and bite – have in common. Both require materials that are strong and resilient, sleek and extremely well designed. That's especially true for teeth. Structural accuracy has to be no less than 50 microns. By comparison, a single bacterium is about 5 microns in size.
The marriage of fields is expected to result later this year in new "virtual mouth" technology – computerized software that will help orthodontists accurately calibrate movement of teeth, and which can help precisely design and speed manufacturing of restorations and replacement teeth.
Georgia Tech's futuristic focus on dentistry was launched when two practitioners came to GTRI for help. Drs. Randy Muecke of Atlanta and David Leever of Tampa wanted to solve a major problem. Dentists have been working with inexact anatomic capture of their patients' tooth position and form. All they've been able to do is approximate those positions using plaster casts related to each other by external reference points. With their patented DentAART Inc. technology, Muecke and Leever are able to precisely capture a patient's exact anatomic relationships and produce a unique presecription for use in planning and delivery of facial procedures – restorative, orthodonic or surgical.
Muecke, who specializes in restoring teeth, and Leever, an orthodontist, had patented DentAART, but needed GTRI researchers to confirm Leever's mathematical proof of the technology. Then they contracted with GTRI to develop a digital version of DentAART, including individualized patient functional movement. Jeffrey J. Sitterle, GTRI's chief scientist and an expert in sensing systems and computer simulation, was able to help.
But Sitterle and other GTRI experts took the idea further and offered a way to computerize the method and create a system for multiple applications. Measurements made from at least three high-resolution X-rays or a computerized tomography (CT) scan are fed into a computer. Specialized software generates a precise 3D digital image of a patient's mouth. Based on this 360-degree image, dentists can design a complete treatment plan to help them know exactly how they need to move and restore teeth. Restorations can be precisely calibrated to the bite pattern of the tooth to be replaced. Then, improvements in materials processing and fabrication can rapidly produce a crown or restoration that orthodontists simply glue into place.
GTRI research engineer Shayne Kondor, right, and graduate student Paul Lowe are working on a digital version of patented technology called DentAART, which allows dentists to precisely capture a patient's exact anatomic tooth position and form and then produce a unique prescription for use in planning and delivery of facial procedures – restorative, orthodontic or surgical.
(300-dpi JPEG version - 1.02mb)
The use of this technology, for which GTRI is seeking several patents, will allow dentists, orthodontists, technicians and dental labs to design and test treatments virtually in a computer. This results in treatments that are accurate, fit correctly the first time, and move patients in and out of the chair quickly – a blessing for both the patient and the dentist, Sitterle says.
Based on excitement generated by the virtual mouth project, GTRI launched the Dental Technology Center (known as DenTeC) in July 2001; it is guided by Sitterle. Six faculty members are already involved, and plans are under way to invite a number of additional researchers to join. The center is focused on four broad areas that draw research expertise from a number of disciplines – materials, applications of advanced manufacturing, automation of processes and instrumentation.
There's no end to what can be done to improve dentistry – a field that has been behind the curve technologically, Muecke says. A more knowledgeable public seeking sophisticated procedures, such as crowns and reconstructive work, is coming up against a profession experiencing a crisis in dental education. The new virtual mouth technology will help dentists, experienced or not, as well as any physician having to work with the human face, to "completely capture a patient's anatomy – producing the required diagnostic information – and utilize this for the patient's best interest as never before possible," Muecke says.
The collaboration with Georgia Tech may help revolutionize dentistry. "It's exciting, because the same knowledge utilized in other fields of science and industry are now being applied to dentistry," Muecke says. "The approach is very exciting and has already produced some breakthroughs."
Among Sitterle's proposed projects that have roots in aerospace engineering is an air abrasion instrument that can erode minor tooth decay. By understanding how to control the flow of air, researchers can design a tool that uses the force of air to remove small spots of decay and then shoots in a spray of sealant. Such a device could be easily used in schools to help children who don't see a dentist regularly. Another tool under consideration is a multispectral sensor that can detect oral cancer. Sitterle is also thinking about designing stronger, sleeker and quieter dental instruments, and ergonomic dental chairs.
Borrowing a little aerospace technology to improve dentistry will not only make its practitioners more efficient, Sitterle says, it will likely make a trip to the dentist "a lot more affordable to many more people."
– Renee Twombly
photo by Stanley Leary
For more information, contact Jeffrey J. Sitterle, Georgia Tech Research Institute, Atlanta, GA 30332-0800. (Telephone: 404-894-7136) (E-mail: jeffrey.sitterle@gtri.gatech.edu)Renee Twombly is an Alabama-based freelance writer.
Tools of the Trade
Economic development toolkit opens the door to opportunity for Georgia communities.
|
Many Georgia communities lack the resources to launch effective, enduring economic development programs.
To help those cities and counties, the Georgia Institute of Technology's Economic Development Institute (EDI) has assembled a set of "tools" applicable statewide. In the past year, EDI has assisted more than 45 communities in this manner.
Determining the right tool for a community depends on that locale's economic development level and needs. For places that have recently started an economic development program or hired a professional economic developer for the first time, EDI's community economic development readiness assessment offers a checklist of essential factors for a successful program. It helps identify immediate actions a community can take given its readiness and resources.
Two years ago, Lawrence Barker, then newly hired executive director of the Mitchell County Economic Development Commission, asked EDI to perform the assessment. According to Barker, this evaluation "should be the first order of business" for a community as it begins to formalize its economic development efforts. His community has implemented each of the assessment's five recommendations.
As the next step, EDI recommends its community economic development strategic assessment, which identifies long-range actions that form the basis of a 10-year economic development plan. It is useful for communities creating or updating their economic development plan or revitalizing their existing program, says EDI's Joy Wilkins.
In Mitchell County, Barker subsequently asked EDI to undertake this assessment, which involved a six-month investigation of the county's economy, infrastructure and resources for industrial and economic development.
"The benefit of the assessment was to give us a baseline on which to proceed," Barker says. "It also got some of our local business leaders involved in the economic development process who otherwise would not have been involved."
EDI's toolkit contains diverse services that help with decision-making and are often integrated into strategic assessment. For example, in Wayne County, EDI's local impact analysis (LOCI) helped determine the fiscal impact of a likely industrial investment that became the basis for strategic assessment recommendations for targeting industries. Wilkins notes these tools often are provided as follow-on services.
|
In Fayette County, EDI's fiscal impact tool for land use planning service (FIT) is helping community leaders answer the question: "If our community's development follows current land use patterns, will our local government have sufficient revenues to meet the increased demand for services?"
Chris Clark, president of the county development authority, says, "I would recommend this process to those communities facing unprecedented growth, as well as those wishing to pursue a controlled and managed development of local resources."
Another example is the site identification and technical evaluation (SITE) that helps to objectively pinpoint the best site(s) for industrial development. Last spring, Washington County officials chose locations for short- and long-term industrial investment using SITE. According to chamber of commerce President Theo McDonald, "We needed some outside eyes to take a look at our county without any preconceived notion."
For communities already addressing urgent economic development issues, EDI's technology opportunities assessment identifies areas for furthering technology development using local resources and those available from Georgia Tech. For instance, last year at the request of Betsy Hueber, president of the Thomaston-Upson County Chamber of Commerce, EDI's TechSmart team performed this assessment. It led to technology leadership training and to formation of the Technology Education Cooperative, a community alliance fostering collaboration on demand for technology services, such as telecommunications.
A new service in the toolkit – the incubator readiness assessment – determines whether a community should examine the feasibility of a business incubator. Recently, this service helped confirm the timing was right for launching an incubator in Tift County and helped secure funding from the OneGeorgia Authority.
Communities can access these tools and other specialized services through Georgia Tech's regional offices located across the state.
– Lincoln Bates
For more information, visit www.edi.gatech.edu - or contact Joy Wilkins, EDI, Georgia Tech, Atlanta, GA 30332-0640. (Telephone: 770-535-6901) (E-mail: joy.wilkins@edi.gatech.edu); or Martha Schoonmaker, same address. (Telephone: 404-894-0332) (E-mail: martha.schoonmaker@edi.gatech.edu).
The Future of Voting
Researchers explore the social and technical issues of voting via the Internet.
Elections of the future may be more convenient, accurate and faster for both voters and elections officials if researchers can improve the technology for voting via the Internet, and elections officials can entice voters to use the technology and make it accessible to them.
In the past several years, a few elections visionaries have advocated casting ballots via the Internet. There was little attention from the general public, but a few small companies and study groups began identifying the core issues. Then momentum for voting reform and modernization began to increase after voting controversies arose from the U.S. presidential election of November 2000. Based on an evolving research agenda, the Georgia Tech Research Institute (GTRI) Internet Voting Research Team has begun to extend knowledge on the subject.
These researchers recently hosted a workshop to share information with their colleagues in academia, government and industry. The group agreed that Internet voting will provide some major benefits – namely, convenience for voters and a more efficient and accurate elections process – but added that its widespread use is many years away.
"People wonder why they can't vote over the Internet if they can buy things over the Internet," says Betty Whitaker, a principal research engineer at GTRI. "But then they consider the possibility of a security breach and its effects.... We believe that over time, as the Internet evolves, and the research and the hardware and software evolve, researchers will be able to resolve some of the concerns about Internet voting."
The GTRI Internet Voting Research Team envisions that Internet voting will occur in phases during the next decade. Within the next few years, military personnel casting absentee ballots probably will be allowed to vote via the Internet. The Federal Voting Assistance Program conducted a pilot project in November 2000 involving 84 overseas voters. The success of this project provides encouragement for researchers in Internet voting yet pointed to some problems in the system, such as lost passwords.
By 2008, researchers predict, Internet voting for absentee ballots will be adopted in a few states. Also, voters may be able to cast their ballots at automated teller machines (ATMs) and at kiosks in post offices and malls. Then by 2012, some states – for example Oregon, which already uses only mail-in ballots – will be the first to adopt Internet voting, researchers say.
"We are working to re-engineer the voting part of the elections process, while understanding its impact on the other parts of the process, including the training of poll workers and the tallying of votes," explains Bob Simpson, a GTRI principal research scientist. ".... Things are more complicated than they appear on the surface."
Specifically, the GTRI research team's project tasks, which are being funded internally, are development of: data models for information systems; an approach to data privacy to ensure secret balloting; a testbed for Internet voting experiments; standards activities, such as Simpson's involvement with the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers' (IEEE) work in this area; and organization of another workshop late this spring to further collaborative research.
These tasks encompass both technical and social science research issues. For example, Simpson and his colleagues are addressing the technical issue of a standard architecture – that is, common hardware, software, networking, authentication procedures, training systems, support tools, etc. – for an Internet voting system.
"There is no agreed-upon architecture, though we know some of the factors that will influence it," Simpson says. "There is an existing set of processes and elections personnel. There is the cost of re-engineering or replacing the existing infrastructure.... Elections are not really that expensive now because the costs have been driven down over time. Counties use the same equipment for an average of 20 years, but computers become obsolete so quickly."
One of the primary social science issues related to Internet voting is access. "It is the 'Digital Divide,' which we define for now as those who have Internet access from home or work and those who don't," says GTRI research associate Marlit Hayslett-Keck. "In the future, it may be an issue of who has broadband and who uses dial-up access."
Current estimates indicate that half of Americans do not have Internet access, and a much smaller percentage have high-speed broadband access. The question of whether citizens are comfortable with Internet use is an even more complicated issue, Whitaker adds.
Another social science issue being researched at GTRI is how Internet voting will affect voter turnout. Will different segments of the population turn out differently? Hayslett-Keck is asking. And legal issues abound. Internet voting would require judicial review for compliance with the Voting Rights Act, as well as other state and federal voting laws. Some laws would have to be changed to enable Internet voting.
Yet another issue is uniformity versus personalization. "There is the opportunity to support individual needs and preferences in the user interface," Simpson says. "For example, can older voters increase the font size on their ballots?"
Simpson believes Internet voting could allow disabled persons the ability to participate in the same manner as other voters. "It's not uncommon for disabled persons to have to give up their secret ballot to be able to participate," he explains. ".... Also, any separate equipment for disabled voters is usually less maintained and efficient. So that's another argument to make it possible for them to participate in the same process as other voters."
GTRI researchers are hopeful that more studies of Internet voting will get under way as government and/or private funding becomes available. Meanwhile, they are keeping in mind the many stakeholders associated with Internet voting.
"In addition to addressing the needs of the voter, we must also consider the needs of election officials, candidates, elected officials, poll workers and others," Whitaker says.
Hayslett-Keck theorizes, "From a political point of view, some stakeholders are concerned that a new voting technology could possibly change the composition of the voting population, thus significantly affecting the outcome."
The GTRI Internet Voting Research Team understands that its work is only a part of the long-term vision for re-engineering the elections process, Simpson says. "Careful analysis and engineering of potential solutions are the next step in laying the groundwork for Internet voting," he adds.
– Jane M. Sanders
For more information, contact Marlit Hayslett-Keck, Information Technology and Telecommunications Laboratory, Georgia Tech Research Institute, Atlanta, GA 30332-0800. (Telephone: 404-894-7256) (E-mail: marlit.hayslett-keck@gtri.gatech.edu); or Bob Simpson, same address, (Telephone: 404-894-3308) (E-mail: bob.simpson@gtri.gatech.edu); or Betty Whitaker, same address, (Telephone: 404-385-1656) (E-mail: betty.whitaker@gtri.gatech.edu).
Also see Research Links news stories.
Contents
Research Horizons
GT Research News
GTRI
Georgia Tech
Send questions and comments regarding these pages to
Webmaster@gtri.gatech.edu
Last updated: Feb. 9, 2002