Appraisal of the difference between the mesiodistal diameters of deciduous incisors and molars and permanent teeth.

AIM: Difference in tooth size between deciduous and permanent teeth can resolve space problems during development of the dentition. AIM: To determine the difference in size between deciduous and permanent teeth in the anterior and posterior areas of the mouth in a group of school-age children from Medellin, Colombia. DESIGN: this longitudinal prospective, descriptive investigation was carried out in 139 skeletal Class I dental stone casts from school-age children from Medellin. Patients were followed annually from 6 to 12 years of age. The final sample consisted of 53 children (35 girls and 18 boys). Leeway space and the incisor liability were determined. RESULTS: A higher positive leeway space was found in the mandible than in the maxilla (3.622 mm and 1.556 mm, respectively). Incisor liability was negatively higher in the maxilla than in the mandible (-7.884mm and -5.386mm, respectively). Six patients showed a negative leeway space between -1.582 mm and -3.184 mm for the mandible and the maxilla, respectively. No statistical significant differences were found by gender; girls showed higher leeway space and incisor liability than boys. CONCLUSION: Normal values for one ethnic group should not be considered normal for another and each group must be treated according to its own characteristics.

Knee ligament injuries: a standardized evaluation method.

An analysis of the data with total scores in non-acute terms obtained from 280 patients suggests that knee injuries can be evaluated as: Good-Excellent=generally normal or near normal function, with few or no signs and minimal symptomatology, 41-50 points; Fair (+)=slight functional disability, with few signs and mild symptomatology, 36-40 points; Fair (-)=moderate functional disability, with significant clinical signs and moderate symptomatology, 31-35 points; Poor=severely disabled, with marked signs and symptoms of a compromised knee, less than 30 points. These gross categorizations correlate well with the patient's own evaluations of his condition and the physicians' clinical assessment of the status of a given knee. Although the majority of patients have been followed for four years or less with this method, it is felt that the method presented has provided: A consistency and organization of the workup, diagnosis, treatment, and study of knee ligament injuries, not previously available at our institution; an objective measure of individual patient response to treatment and eventual recovery; in general, more objective means of assessing modalities of therapy and modes of primary repair and reconstruction of ligaments; a tool facilitating communication both among physicians and between physicians and patient; a means by which the long term follow-up of an individual patient by more than one physician can become a more efficient undertaking; an increasing data bank of standardized observations from which many ideas are yet to evolve; and most importantly, an improvement and the means possible for further improvement in the care rendered patients with knee ligament injuries; also, the present computerized format has given rise to additional benefits not directly related to the immediate problem of knee ligament injury. One such benefit is the ability to request and receive rapidly, a concise, yet complete legal summary of a patient's hospital course.