Orthodontic approach to treat complex hypodontia using miniscrews in a growing patient

This article reports orthodontic treatment of a case of hypodontia of five premolars in an 11-year-old female patient with a positive tooth size-arch length discrepancy in both dental arches. The patient had a straight profile with balanced facial growth. Setup manufacture revealed the possibility of achieving ideal occlusion by mesializing permanent molars up to 15 mm, in addition to keeping a primary molar in the dental arch. With the aid of absolute anchorage, the proposed mechanics was performed and the occlusion predicted in the setup was achieved, while profile and facial growth pattern were maintained. The use of miniscrews for extensive orthodontic movements was successful. Furthermore, one primary molar was extensively mesialized. The indication of gingivoplasty to correct gingival smile proved effective. This is considered a useful technique for orthodontists.

Este artigo apresenta o tratamento ortodôntico de um caso com hipodontia de cinco pré-molares, em uma paciente, de 11 anos de idade, com discrepância positiva de modelo em ambas as arcadas. A paciente apresentava perfil reto, com crescimento facial equilibrado. Por meio da confecção de set-up, verificou-se a possibilidade de se estabelecer uma oclusão ideal por meio da mesialização, de até 15mm, dos molares permanentes e manutenção de um molar decíduo no arco. Com o auxílio de ancoragem absoluta, foi realizada a mecânica proposta, alcançando-se a oclusão prevista em set-up, além da manutenção do perfil e do padrão de crescimento facial. A utilização de mini-implantes para grandes movimentos ortodônticos foi favorável, incluindo a extensa mesialização de um molar decíduo. A indicação da gengivoplastia para correção do sorriso gengival se mostrou acertada, sendo essa uma técnica de grande auxílio à Ortodontia.

Palonosetron versus granisetron in combination with aprepitant for the prevention of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting in patients with gynecologic cancer / 부인종양

OBJECTIVE: There is no research regarding the appropriate antiemetic agents for female patients, especially those receiving moderately emetogenic chemotherapy (MEC). We evaluated the antiemetic efficacy of a combination of 5-HT3 receptor with/without aprepitant in patients with gynecological cancer treated with the TC (paclitaxel and carboplatin) regimen of MEC. METHODS: We enrolled 38 patients diagnosed with gynecologic cancer and scheduled to receive the TC regimen. The patients were randomly assigned to receive a 5-HT3 receptor antagonist, either palonosetron in the first cycle followed by granisetron in the second cycle or vice versa. In the third cycle, all patients received a combination of the 5-HT3 receptor and dexamethasone with/without aprepitant. RESULTS: When three drugs were administered, palonosetron consistently produced an equivalent complete response (CR) rate to granisetron in the acute phase (89.5% vs. 86.8%, p=0.87) and delayed phase (60.5% vs. 65.8%, p=0.79). With regard to the change in dietary intake, palonosetron exhibited similar efficacy to granisetron in the acute phase (92.1% vs. 89.4%, p=0.19) and delayed phase (65.7% vs. 68.4%, p=0.14). However, in the delayed phase, the addition of aprepitant therapy with a 5-HT3 receptor antagonist and dexamethasone produced a higher CR rate than a 5-HT3 receptor antagonist with dexamethasone (93.3% vs. 47.8%, p<0.001) and allowed the patients to maintain a higher level of dietary intake (93.3% vs. 56.5%, p<0.001). CONCLUSION: The addition of aprepitant therapy was more effective than the control therapy of a 5-HT3 receptor antagonist, and dexamethasone in gynecological cancer patients treated with the TC regimen.

Effect of Improvement in Lower Urinary Tract Symptoms on Sexual Function in Men: Tamsulosin Monotherapy vs. Combination Therapy of Tamsulosin and Solifenacin

PURPOSE: To evaluate how much the improvement of lower urinary tract symptoms (LUTS) affects sexual function and which storage symptoms or voiding symptoms have the greatest effect on sexual function. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A total of 187 patients were enrolled in this study. Patients were randomly assigned to receive either tamsulosin 0.2 mg (group A) or tamsulosin 0.2 mg and solifenacin 5 mg (group B). At 4 weeks and 12 weeks, the LUTS and sexual function of the patients were evaluated by use of the International Index of Erectile Function-5 (IIEF5), International Prostate Symptom Score (IPSS), Overactive Bladder Symptom Score (OABSS) questionnaire, uroflowmetry, and bladder scan. RESULTS: Both groups A and B showed statistically significant improvements in IPSS, OABSS, and quality of life (QoL). Group A showed improved maximum flow rate, mean flow rate, and residual urine volume by time. Group B did not show an improvement in flow rate or residual urine volume but total voiding volume increased with time. The IIEF5 score was not improved in either group. In group A, the IIEF5 score dropped from 13.66+/-4.97 to 11.93+/-6.14 after 12 weeks (p=0.072). Group B showed a decline in the IIEF5 score from 13.19+/-5.91 to 12.45+/-6.38 (p=0.299). Although group B showed a relatively smaller decrease in the IIEF5 score, the difference between the two groups was not significant (p=0.696). CONCLUSIONS: Tamsulosin monotherapy and combination therapy with solifenacin did not improve erectile function despite improvements in voiding symptoms and QoL. The improvement in storage symptoms did not affect erectile function.

Effect of Improvement in Lower Urinary Tract Symptoms on Sexual Function in Men: Tamsulosin Monotherapy vs. Combination Therapy of Tamsulosin and Solifenacin

PURPOSE: To evaluate how much the improvement of lower urinary tract symptoms (LUTS) affects sexual function and which storage symptoms or voiding symptoms have the greatest effect on sexual function. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A total of 187 patients were enrolled in this study. Patients were randomly assigned to receive either tamsulosin 0.2 mg (group A) or tamsulosin 0.2 mg and solifenacin 5 mg (group B). At 4 weeks and 12 weeks, the LUTS and sexual function of the patients were evaluated by use of the International Index of Erectile Function-5 (IIEF5), International Prostate Symptom Score (IPSS), Overactive Bladder Symptom Score (OABSS) questionnaire, uroflowmetry, and bladder scan. RESULTS: Both groups A and B showed statistically significant improvements in IPSS, OABSS, and quality of life (QoL). Group A showed improved maximum flow rate, mean flow rate, and residual urine volume by time. Group B did not show an improvement in flow rate or residual urine volume but total voiding volume increased with time. The IIEF5 score was not improved in either group. In group A, the IIEF5 score dropped from 13.66+/-4.97 to 11.93+/-6.14 after 12 weeks (p=0.072). Group B showed a decline in the IIEF5 score from 13.19+/-5.91 to 12.45+/-6.38 (p=0.299). Although group B showed a relatively smaller decrease in the IIEF5 score, the difference between the two groups was not significant (p=0.696). CONCLUSIONS: Tamsulosin monotherapy and combination therapy with solifenacin did not improve erectile function despite improvements in voiding symptoms and QoL. The improvement in storage symptoms did not affect erectile function.