Orthodontic and orthopaedic treatment for anterior open bite in children

BackgroundAnterior open bite occurs when there is a lack of vertical overlap of the upper and lower incisors. the aetiology is multifactorial including: oral habits, unfavourable growth patterns, enlarged lymphatic tissue with mouth breathing. Several treatments have been proposed to correct this malocclusion, but interventions are not supported by strong scientific evidence.ObjectivesThe aim of this systematic review was to evaluate orthodontic and orthopaedic treatments to correct anterior open bite in children.Search methodsThe following databases were searched: the Cochrane Oral Health Group's Trials Register (to 14 February 2014); the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL)(The Cochrane Library 2014, Issue 1); MEDLINE via OVID (1946 to 14 February 2014); EMBASE via OVID (1980 to 14 February 2014); LILACS via BIREME Virtual Health Library (1982 to 14 February 2014); BBO via BIREME Virtual Health Library (1980 to 14 February 2014); and SciELO (1997 to 14 February 2014). We searched for ongoing trials via ClinicalTrials.gov (to 14 February 2014). Chinese journals were handsearched and the bibliographies of papers were retrieved.Selection criteriaAll randomised or quasi-randomised controlled trials of orthodontic or orthopaedic treatments or both to correct anterior open bite in children.Data collection and analysisTwo review authors independently assessed the eligibility of all reports identified.Risk ratios (RRs) and corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated for dichotomous data. the continuous data were expressed as described by the author.Main resultsThree randomised controlled trials were included comparing: effects of Frankel's function regulator-4 (FR-4) with lip-seal training versus no treatment; repelling-magnet splints versus bite-blocks; and palatal crib associated with high-pull chincup versus no treatment.The study comparing repelling-magnet splints versus bite-blocks could not be analysed because the authors interrupted the treatment earlier than planned due to side effects in four of ten patients.FR-4 associated with lip-seal training (RR = 0.02 (95% CI 0.00 to 0.38)) and removable palatal crib associated with high-pull chincup (RR = 0.23 (95% CI 0.11 to 0.48)) were able to correct anterior open bite.No study described: randomisation process, sample size calculation, there was not blinding in the cephalometric analysis and the two studies evaluated two interventions at the same time. These results should be therefore viewed with caution.Authors' conclusionsThere is weak evidence that the interventions FR-4 with lip-seal training and palatal crib associated with high-pull chincup are able to correct anterior open bite. Given that the trials included have potential bias, these results must be viewed with caution. Recommendations for clinical practice cannot be made based only on the results of these trials. More randomised controlled trials are needed to elucidate the interventions for treating anterior open bite.

Low-level laser therapy and light-emitting diode effects in the secretion of neuropeptides SP and CGRP in rat skin

The phototherapy effects in the skin are related to biomodulation, usually to accelerate wound healing. However, there is no direct proof of the interrelation between the effects of low-level laser therapy (LLLT) and light-emitting diode (LED) in neuropeptide secretion, these substances being prematurely involved in the neurogenic inflammation phase of wound healing. This study therefore focused on investigating LLLT and LED in Calcitonin gene-related peptide (CGRP) and substance P (SP) secretion in healthy rat skin. Forty rats were randomly distributed into five groups with eight rats each: Control Group, Blue LED Group (470 nm, 350 mW power), Red LED Group (660 nm, 350 mW power), Red Laser Group (660 nm, 100 mW power), and Infrared Laser Group (808 nm, 100 mW power) (DMCA (R) Equipamentos Ltda., So Carlos, So Paulo, Brazil). the skin of the animals in the experimental groups was irradiated using the punctual contact technique, with a total energy of 40 J, single dose, standardized at one point in the dorsal region. After 14 min of irradiation, the skin samples were collected for CGRP and SP quantification using western blot analysis. SP was released in Infrared Laser Group (p = 0.01); there was no difference in the CGRP secretion among groups. Infrared (808 nm) LLLT enhances neuropeptide SP secretion in healthy rat skin.

Ototoxicity evaluation in medulloblastoma patients treated with involved field boost using intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT): a retrospective review

Background: Ototoxicity is a known side effect of combined radiation therapy and cisplatin chemotherapy for the treatment of medulloblastoma. the delivery of an involved field boost by intensity modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) may reduce the dose to the inner ear when compared with conventional radiotherapy. the dose of cisplatin may also affect the risk of ototoxicity. A retrospective study was performed to evaluate the impact of involved field boost using IMRT and cisplatin dose on the rate of ototoxicity.Methods: Data from 41 medulloblastoma patients treated with IMRT were collected. Overall and disease-free survival rates were calculated by Kaplan-Meier method Hearing function was graded according to toxicity criteria of Pediatric Oncology Group (POG). Doses to inner ear and total cisplatin dose were correlated with hearing function by univariate and multivariate data analysis.Results: After a mean follow-up of 44 months (range: 14 to 72 months), 37 patients remained alive, with two recurrences, both in spine with CSF involvement, resulting in a disease free-survival and overall survival of 85.2% and 90.2%, respectively. Seven patients (17%) experienced POG Grade 3 or 4 toxicity. Cisplatin dose was a significant factor for hearing loss in univariate analysis (p < 0.03). in multivariate analysis, median dose to inner ear was significantly associated with hearing loss (p < 0.01). POG grade 3 and 4 toxicity were uncommon with median doses to the inner ear bellow 42 Gy (p < 0.05) and total cisplatin dose of less than 375 mg/m(2) (p < 0.01).Conclusions: IMRT leads to a low rate of severe ototoxicity. Median radiation dose to auditory apparatus should be kept below 42 Gy. Cisplatin doses should not exceed 375 mg/m(2).