ABSTRACT
Left Ventricular Non-Compaction Cardiomyopathy (LVNC) is a rare myocardial disorder characterized by abnormal myocardial tissue formation in which the left ventricular wall appears to be trabecular with prominent intertrabecular recesses. The diagnosis of LVNC is predominantly reliant on cardiac imaging, namely thoracic echocardiography, however, cardiac MRI is indicated in conditions in which echocardiography is inconclusive. Diagnostic criteria for both echocardiography and cardiac MRI differ, however, the general principle of diagnosis is a comparison of the thickness of non-compacted to compacted myocardial tissue. The management of LVNC is nearly identical to that of Heart Failure with reduced Ejection Fraction (HFrEF), however, anticoagulation is an additional measure of management to the thrombogenic nature of non-compacted myocardial tissue. Here, we discuss a case of LVNC and the current data on its management.
ABSTRACT
AIM: To understand the efficiency of SureSmile treatment vs conventional treatment. METHODS: First, 12,335 completed patient histories representing different treatment philosophies and geographically diverse practices were collected. Included were 9,390 SureSmile patients and 2,945 conventional patients. Variables in these patient records included: (1) treatment time, months from bonding to debonding; (2) malocclusion class, Angle Class I, II, or III; (3) patient age, adolescents (< 18 years) or adults (≥ 18 years); and (4) patient visits, total number of treatment visits. Nonparametric regression tests were used to analyze the data. RESULTS: The median treatment time for the SureSmile patient pool (15 months) was 8 months shorter than that of the conventional patient pool (23 months). The median care cycle length of Class II SureSmile patients (13 months) was 2 months shorter than that of Class I SureSmile patients (15 months) and 3 months shorter than that of Class III SureSmile patients (16 months). SureSmile patients (14 visits) had four fewer median treatment visits than conventional patients (18 visits). All results were significant at P = .001. No significant differences were noted between the median care cycle lengths of adolescents and adults. CONCLUSION: This study found that SureSmile treatment facilitates more timely care than conventional treatment. Further prospective studies are required to elucidate the effectiveness of SureSmile treatment.
