ABSTRACT
RESUMEN: Las anomalías dentomaxilares (ADM) constituyen un problema de salud pública en Chile, lo que genera la necesidad de un diagnóstico sistemático y la asignación de prioridades de tratamiento. Las ADM que afectan la estética pueden constituir una barrera para la inserción social de los adolescentes. El Dental Aesthetic Index (IED), es un instrumento que permite jerarquizar la necesidad de tratamiento de las ADM. El propósito de esta investigación fue caracterizar las ADM, necesidad de tratamiento a través de IED y auto-percepción estética en escolares de 12 a 15 años. Estudio de Prevalencia en adolescentes de 12 a 15 años, de la ciudad de Viña del Mar. El criterio de exclusión fue tratamiento ortodóncico previo. Se seleccionaron 204 sujetos mediante asignación uniforme con un nivel de confianza de 95 %. Variables recogidas: Edad, tipo de establecimiento educacional, sexo, percepción estética y IED por componentes. La prevalencia según IED fue de 63 % [56 % - 70 %]. La necesidad de tratamiento fue 44,2 % electivo, 31,01 % altamente deseable y 24,81 % obligatorio y prioritario. El IED Comunitario dio 29.5. Se encontró una relación significativa entre IED y percepción estética con un p-valor: 0,006 (Rho: 0,343). La prevalencia de anomalías dentomaxilares medido a través del indicador IED alcanza el 63 % y el IED comunitario de 29,54 % afirmando que el grupo "requiere tratamiento electivo por ADM definida"; en los establecimientos particulares está subestimado pues algunos casos ya han sido tratados con anterioridad a esta investigación.
ABSTRACT: Dentomaxillary anomalies are a public health problem in Chile, resulting in the need for screening and prioritization of treatment. Dentomaxillary anomalies affecting the aesthetics can be a barrier to social integration of adolescents. The Dental Aesthetic Index (DAI) is an instrument to prioritize the need for treatment of malocclusions. The purpose of this research was to characterize the malocclusions, orthodontic treatment needs and esthetic self-perception in schoolchildren from 12 to 15 years through DAI. Prevalence Study in 12 to 15 year-old adolescents from Viña del Mar. The exclusion criteria was previous orthodontic treatment. The sample was 204 subjects selected by uniform allocation with a confidence level of 95 %. Variables included age, type of educational establishment, sex, aesthetic perception and DAI by component. Prevalence of dentomaxillary anomalies by DAI was 63 % [56 % - 70 %], Treatment needs were 44.2 % treatment elective, 31.01 % highly desirable and 24.81 % mandatory. The Community's DAI was 29.5. The relationship between DAI and aesthetic perception was significant (p-value: 0.006; Rho: 0.343). The prevalence of dento-maxillary anomalies measured by DAI reaches 63 % and the communal DAI was 29.54 stating that the group "requires elective treatment for definite malocclusion"; in private schools, it is underestimated because some cases had already been treated prior to this investigation.
Subject(s)
Humans , Male , Female , Adolescent , Tooth Abnormalities/etiology , Jaw Abnormalities/etiology , Malocclusion/etiology , Orthodontics , Tooth Abnormalities/physiopathology , Tooth Abnormalities/epidemiology , Chile/epidemiology , Prevalence , Esthetics, Dental , Jaw Abnormalities/physiopathology , Jaw Abnormalities/epidemiology , Malocclusion/physiopathology , Malocclusion/epidemiologyABSTRACT
PURPOSE: To evaluate the effects of copaiba oil on jaw defects repair in Wistar rats treated with bioglass or adipose tissue. METHODS: A jaw defect was randomly created in forty-two rats and filled with bioglass or adipose tissue. The two groups (Gbio and Gcell) were subdivided in three subgroups with seven animals each according to gavage administration: control (distillated water), oil (copaiba oil) and melox (meloxicam). Euthanasia was performed after forty post-operative days. The bone formation was analyzed regarding the histological aspects. RESULTS: The osteoclasts activity was observed only in four subgroups (p=0.78). Regarding the osteoblasts presence, it was very similar between the subgroups, the difference was due to Gcell-melox (p=0.009) that presented less osteoblastic activity. The inflammatory cells were more evident in Gcell-melox subgroup, however, there was no difference in comparison with the other subgroups (p=0.52). Bone formation was observed in all subgroups, just two animals showed no bone formation even after 40 days. More than 50% of bone matrix mineralization was observed in 56% (23 animals) of the analyzed areas. The bone matrix mineralization was not different between subgroups (p=0.60). CONCLUSIONS: The subgroups that received copaiba oil showed bone repair, although not statistically significant in comparison to subgroups treated whit meloxicam or controls. Copaiba oil administered by gavage had no effect on bone repair in this experimental model. .