Laser Phototherapy as Topical Prophylaxis Against Head and Neck Cancer Radiotherapy-Induced Oral Mucositis: Comparison Between Low and High/Low Power Lasers

Background and Objective: Oral mucositis is a dose-limiting and painful side effect of radiotherapy (RT) and/or chemotherapy in cancer patients. The purpose of the present study was to analyze the effect of different protocols of laser phototherapy (LPT) on the grade of mucositis and degree of pain in patients under RT. Patients and Methods: Thirty-nine patients were divided into three groups: G1, where the irradiations were done three times a week using low power laser; G2, where combined high and low power lasers were used three time a week; and G3, where patients received low power laser irradiation once a week. The low power LPT was done using an InGaAlP laser (660 nm/40 mW/6 J cm(-2)/0.24 J per point). In the combined protocol, the high power LPT was done using a GaAlAs laser (808 nm, 1 W/cm(2)). Oral mucositis was assessed at each LPT session in accordance to the oral-mucositis scale of the National Institute of the Cancer-Common Toxicity criteria (NIC-CTC). The patient self-assessed pain was measured by means of the visual analogue scale. Results: All protocols of LPT led to the maintenance of oral mucositis scores in the same levels until the last RT session. Moreover, LPT three times a week also maintained the pain levels. However, the patients submitted to the once a week LPT had significant pain increase; and the association of low/high LPT led to increased healing time. Conclusions: These findings are desired when dealing with oncologic patients under RT avoiding unplanned radiation treatment breaks and additional hospital costs. Lasers Surg.Med. 41:264-270,2009. (C) 2009Wiley-Liss, Inc.

Orthodontic-surgical treatment of Class III malocclusion with extraction of an impacted canine and multi-segmented maxillary surgery

Establishment of a treatment plan is based on efficacy and easy application by the clinician, and acceptance by the patient. Treatment of adult patients with Class III malocclusion might require orthognathic surgery, especially when the deformity is severe, with a significant impact on facial esthetics. Impacted teeth can remarkably influence treatment planning, which should be precise and concise to allow a reasonably short treatment time with low biologic cost. We report here the case of a 20-year-old man who had a skeletal Class III malocclusion and impaction of the maxillary right canine, leading to remarkable deviation of the maxillary midline; this was his chief complaint. Because of the severely deviated position of the impacted canine, treatment included extraction of the maxillary right canine and left first premolar for midline correction followed by leveling, alignment, correction of compensatory tooth positioning, and orthognathic surgery to correct the skeletal Class III malocclusion because of the severe maxillary deficiency. This treatment approach allowed correction of the maxillary dental midline discrepancy to the midsagittal plane and establishment of good occlusion and optimal esthetics. (Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2010;137:840-9)

Nonextraction treatment of a skeletal Class III malocclusion

This case report describes the nonsurgical, nonextraction therapy of a 16-year-old boy with a skeletal Class III malocclusion, a prognathic mandible, and a retrusive maxilla. He was initially classified as needing orthognathic surgery, but he and his parents wanted to avoid that. The Class III malocclusion was corrected with a rapid palatal expander and a maxillary protraction mask followed by nonextraction orthodontic treatment with fixed appliances, combined with short Class III and vertical elastics in the anterior area. The height of the maxillary alveolar process and the vertical face height were slightly increased with treatment. Class I molar and canine relationships were achieved, and the facial profile improved substantially. (Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2009; 136: 736-45)

Six-year evaluation of the atraumatic restorative treatment approach in permanent-tooth Class III restorations

Purpose: The aim of this study was to assess the 6-year performance of the ART (atraumatic restorative treatment) approach in Class III restorations in permanent teeth. Materials and Methods: A total of 127 ART Class III restorations, using Ketac-Molar (3M ESPE) ionomer cement, was performed in 58 adult patients by one experienced operator in 1998. After a 6 years, 34 patients and 65 restorations were evaluated according to ART criteria. Two calibrated examiners carried out the evaluation. Data were analyzed by exact 95% Confidence Interval and Survival Analysis using the Jackknife method for standard error determination. Results: Among assessed restorations, 73.8% (95% CI = 61.5% to 86.2%) were in good condition and classified as successful, with a 67.6% (95% CI = 54.4% to 80.7%) cumulative survival rate. Failed restorations included 13.9% completely or partially missing restorations, 9.2% restorations that had been replaced by other treatment, 1.5% restorations with a large defect at the margin, and 1.5% restorations that presented high wear on the surface. No caries was observed even in those teeth in which restorations were absent. Conclusion: The 6-year success rate of the ART approach in anterior permanent teeth (Class III) was considered high.

Class III subdivision malocclusion corrected with asymmetric intermaxillary elastics

Correcting a Class III subdivision malocclusion is usually a challenge for an orthodontist, especially if the patient`s profile does not allow for any extractions. One treatment option is to use asymmetric intermaxillary elastics to correct the unilateral anteroposterior discrepancy. However, the success of this method depends on the individual response of each patient and his or her compliance in using the elastics. The objectives of this article were to present a successful treatment of a Class III subdivision patient with this approach and to illustrate and discuss the dentoskeletal changes that contributed to the correction. (Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2010;138:221-30)