Risk factors for blindness in patients with open-angle glaucoma followed-up for at least 15 years

Purpose: To determine the proportion of blindness and investigate the relationships between risk factors based on clinical characteristics and development of blindness in patients with primary open-angle glaucoma (POAG) treated for at least 15 years. Methods: A retrospective observational chart review was performed with 403 patients referred to a tertiary level hospital, each with a diagnosis of primary open-angle glaucoma, treated for at least 15 years. Blindness attributable to glaucoma was defined based on visual acuity and/or visual field tests. Variables considered to be possible risk factors for blindness were evaluated using odds ratio (OR), confidence interval (95% CI), and univariate and multivariate analyses. Results: Thirty-one patients became blind [13/53 (24.5%) - unilaterally and 18/53 (34%) - bilaterally] during the follow-up period of treatment (19.5 +/- 4.6 years, range 15-31 years). Multivariate statistics with regression analysis revealed that persistency on initial therapy <= 6 months was significantly associated with blindness, both unilateral (OR: 8.4; 95% CI: 1.3-56.4) and bilateral (OR: 7.2; 95% CI: 1.3-39.6). Other potential factors such as race, age, gender or number of medications were not associated with blindness. Conclusion: Blindness from primary open-angle glaucoma was not uncommon in this population of treated patients after the long follow-up period proposed. Persistence rates with the first therapy, as measured by a medical decision to change, were low. Persistence <= 6 months was statistically associated with the development of unilateral and bilateral blindness from glaucoma.

Angle class II correction with MARA appliance

Objective: To assess the effects produced by the MARA appliance in the treatment of Angle’s Class II, division 1 malocclusion. Methods: The sample consisted of 44 young patients divided into two groups: The MARA Group, with initial mean age of 11.99 years, treated with the MARA appliance for an average period of 1.11 years, and the Control Group, with initial mean age of 11.63 years, monitored for a mean period of 1.18 years with no treatment. Lateral cephalograms were used to compare the groups using cephalometric variables in the initial and final phases. For these comparisons, Student’s t test was employed. Results: MARA appliance produced the following effects: Maxillary growth restriction, no change in mandibular development, improvement in maxillomandibular relationship, increased lower anterior facial height and counterclockwise rotation of the functional occlusal plane. In the upper arch, the incisors moved lingually and retruded, while the molars moved distally and tipped distally. In the lower arch, the incisors proclined and protruded, whereas the molars mesialized and tipped mesially. Finally, there was a significant reduction in overbite and overjet, with an obvious improvement in molar relationship. Conclusions: It was concluded that the MARA appliance proved effective in correcting Angle’s Class II, division 1 malocclusion while inducing skeletal changes and particularly dental changes.