Mesiodistal Angulation of Each Whole Tooth in Patients With Nonsyndromic Unilateral Cleft Lip and Palate: Is it Symmetrical?

OBJECTIVE: To assess the symmetry of the mesiodistal angulations of maxillary and mandibular teeth in patients with unilateral cleft lip and palate (UCLP) and compare with the class I control group without cleft lip and palate (CLP). DESIGN: A retrospective study. SETTING: University department. PATIENTS, PARTICIPANTS: The panoramic radiographs of 45 orthodontically untreated individuals with nonsyndromic UCLP (mean age 14.13 ± 0.75 years) and 45 skeletal class I individuals without CLP (mean age 14.01 ± 0.74 years). INTERVENTIONS: The line passing through the most superior points of the condyles was taken as the reference. The angle between the long axes of the maxillary and mandibular teeth and reference line was measured digitally. With the purpose of determining condylar symmetry, mandibular asymmetry index measurements were utilized. Independent samples t test and paired samples t test were used for the statistical analyses. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE(S): The mesiodistal angulation of the maxillary and mandibular teeth in patients with UCLP was measured. The differences between the contralateral sides were determined and compared to class I individuals without CLP. RESULTS: No statistically significant difference was found among the condylar asymmetry in both groups (P > .05).The significant differences between the cleft and noncleft sides in the UCLP group was observed in the maxillary central, canine, first premolar and second molar teeth (P < .001, P = .002, P = .013, P = .012, respectively). The mean differences were found to be higher in the central and lateral incisors, canines and first premolars in the UCLP group (P < .001, P = .006, P = .001, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: Although the cleft-side maxillary central incisors tipped in a distal direction in patients with UCLP, the canine and first premolar showed more inclinations toward the mesial direction.

Do Adhesive Flash-free Brackets Affect Bacterial Plaque in Patients with Adequate Oral Hygiene? A Randomised Controlled Clinical and Microbiological Assessment.

PURPOSE: To compare adhesive flash-free (FF) and adhesive pre-coated (APC) brackets in terms of plaque retention and constituents, gingival biomarkers and enamel demineralisation. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Fifty adolescents (mean age ± SD; 14.23 ± 0.15 years, age range: 13-18 years) were randomly distributed to receive FF or APC ceramic brackets in the maxillary right or left quadrant. Plaque and gingival indices, quantitative light-induced fluorescence (QLF) imaging, gingival crevicular fluid (GCF) and plaque sampling were performed at baseline and at 1, 2 and 3 months (T0, T1, T2, T3) after bracket placement. QLF was repeated following debonding. GCF samples were analysed for biomarkers by immunoassay and plaque by real-time PCR for bacterial content. Data were analysed using the Wilcoxon test on dependent samples and 2-tailed ANOVA. RESULTS: Plaque index, gingival index and fluorescence changes were similar for the two adhesive-bracket systems. GCF volumes and interleukin (IL)-1ß levels increased compared to baseline (p < 0.05). IL-17A levels and RANKL:OPG ratios were similar in both groups. In dental plaque, Aggregatibacter actinomycetemcomitans numbers were higher in the APC group at T3. Fusobacterium nucleatum (Fn) counts statistically significantly decreased at T1 and T3 as compared to T0 in the FF group (p < 0.05 and p < 0.01, respectively), whereas Fn counts increased in the APC group at T3 (p < 0.01). Porphyromonas gingivalis, Streptococcus oralis and total bacterial counts were significantly higher in the APC group than in the FF group at T3 (p < 0.01). CONCLUSION: In orthodontic patients with good oral hygiene, the quantity of plaque on adhesive flash-free brackets and conventional brackets did not differ, but the constituents of plaque differed, with less pathogenic bacteria detected around adhesive flash-free brackets. Further studies also including a group of individuals with poor oral hygiene and longer follow-up periods may better clarify the issue.

The relationship between somatic sense perception levels and comorbid psychiatric diseases in chronic pain patients.

OBJECTIVES: The purpose of the study was to evaluate any comorbid psychiatric disorders in patients with chronic pain and to examine the effects of sociodemographic details and the level of somatic sense perception on the severity of these diseases. METHODS: In this study, 51 chronic pain patients were evaluated in a consultation with a psychiatrist. Sociodemographic characteristics of the patients, such as age, gender, education level, and marital status were recorded, and Structured Clinical Interview for DSM-IV results were assessed. The patients' chronic pains were classified as idiopathic or secondary to organic etiology. In addition, the Symptom Checklist-90, Somatosensory Amplification Scale (SSAS), Hamilton Depression Rating Scale, and the Hamilton Anxiety Scale (HAM-A) were used. RESULTS: The incidence of psychiatric disorders in chronic pain patients was found to be 74.5%. Somatoform disorders were the most frequently diagnosed, at 37.3%. The rate of depressive and anxiety disorders was, respectively, 29.4% and 23.5%. Comorbid anxiety scores (p=0.019) and SSAS scores (p=0.046) were significantly higher in chronic pain patients with a somatoform disorder. HAM-A scores were found to be significantly higher in patients with depression (p=0.004). A positive and linear relationship was determined between the SSAS score and depression, anxiety, and the severity of mental symptoms. CONCLUSION: Structured or semi-structured interviews can be performed in pain polyclinics or psychiatric outpatient clinics to determine the level of perception of somatic sensations. This could be beneficial in the treatment of chronic pain and comorbid psychiatric disorders.