RESUMO
INTRODUCTION@#This study compared the effectiveness and safety of neem (Azadirachta indica) seed oil methanolic extract shampoo against permethrin shampoo in reducing head lice infestation among children.@*METHODS@#A single-blind, non-inferiority, randomized clinical trial was conducted on children aged 6-14 years with pediculosis. Using block randomization, the participants were assigned to receive either 10% neem seed oil methanolic shampoo, 1% permethrin shampoo, or pure shampoo for three treatment applications at 10-day intervals. The presence of head lice after each application was determined by standard quadrant counting and compared with the baseline count within and among treatment groups.@*RESULTS@#There was a statistically significant difference in lice count after treatment for both neem and permethrin, with mean reductions of 17.8 ± 23.97 (p = 0.043) and 22.5 ± 23.47 (p = 0.014), respectively. Repeated Measures ANOVA showed a summary p-value of 0.041 for neem, 0.013 for permethrin, and 0.193 for the shampoo alone with a linear trend indicating a significant decrease in the lice counts from the baseline to the third application of neem and permethrin shampoo, but not in the shampoo group. There was no significant difference in the mean decrease in lice count from baseline to the third application between the neem and permethrin shampoo groups.@*CONCLUSION@#Neem seed oil methanolic extract shampoo is non-inferior and comparable to permethrin in the reduction of head lice count. There were no reported dermatologic adverse effects such as burning sensations, redness, skin irritation, and allergic reactions.
RESUMO
The epidemiologic data and management done to patients with maxillofacial fractures admitted at the Philippine General Hospital from January 2004 to December 2007 were studied. METHODS: The records of 512 patients were reviewed. The data obtained included age, gender, date of the injury, etiology and types of fractures, and management done. The relationship between the patient age and the etiology of the injury as well as the relationship between the etiology and the type of fracture was determined through a single factor analysis of variance (ANOVA) using STAT-EASE Design Expert Statistical Software Version 7.1.5.RESULTS: The data obtained from the study is consistent with international data, however, some differences may be noted. Maxillofacial fractures were most common among young adults aged 21 to 30 years old (34.8%), followed by adults aged 31 to 40 years old (22.1%). Men were injured more than women with a 7:1 ratio (males = 87% females = 13 %). The most common etiology of maxillofacial fracture was traffic-related accidents (63.7%) in contrast to physical assault as what was apparent a couple of decades back . Other common causes were physical assault or mauling (14.5%), falls (11.5%), gunshot wounds (6.4%) and hacking (3.1%). Mandibular fractures were the most common (32.8%, n=168) in contrast to nasal bone fractures as what is reported in international literature. Other fractures included frontal (30.9% n=158), orbital (24%, n=123), maxillary (16.4%, n=84), zygomatic (15%, n=77), and nasal bone fractures (14.1%, n=72). Open reduction with internal fixation using titanium miniplates is the most common treatment for displaced fractures. A statistically significant relationship was noted between etiology and type of fracture, as well as age and etiology of fracture.CONCLUSION: In the last 30 years, a change in the epidemiologic trends of patients consulting for maxillofacial trauma was noted. Presently, traffic-related accidents overshadow interpersonal violence as the cause of facial fractures. Maxillofacial fractures are more common amongst 21-30 year-olds. The frontal bone is second only to the mandible as the most commonly involved bone in maxillofacial fractures. Miniplate osteosynthesis is the method of choice of fixation, mainly due to its functional and technical advantages. The significant relationship between age and etiology of injury as well as etiology of injury and type of fracture indicates that maxillofacial fractures and ORIGINAL ARTICLE their extent can be brought about and influenced by some other factors such as age, etiology and type of injury which have statistically established their own interactions.