A Longitudinal Three-Center Study of Dental Arch Relationship in Patients With Bilateral Cleft Lip and Palate

Objective: To compare and evaluate longitudinally the dental arch relationships from 4.5 to 13.5 years of age with the Bauru-BCLP Yardstick in a large sample of patients with bilateral cleft lip and palate (BCLP). Design: Retrospective longitudinal intercenter outcome study. Patients: Dental casts of 204 consecutive patients with complete BCLP were evaluated at 6, 9, and 12 years of age. All models were identified only by random identification numbers. Setting: Three cleft palate centers with different treatment protocols. Main Outcome Measures: Dental arch relationships were categorized with the Bauru-BCLP yardstick. Increments for each interval (from 6 to 9 years, 6 to 12 years, and 9 to 12 years) were analyzed by logistic and linear regression models. Results: There were no significant differences in outcome measures between the centers at age 12 or at age 9. At age 6, center B showed significantly better results (p = .027), but this difference diminished as the yardstick score for this group increased over time (linear regression analysis), the difference with the reference category (center C, boys) for the intervals 6 to 12 and 9 to 12 years being 10.4% (p = .041) and 12.9% (p = .009), respectively. Conclusions: Despite different treatment protocols, dental arch relationships in the three centers were comparable in final scores at age 9 and 12 years. Delaying hard palate closure and employing infant orthopedics did not appear to be advantageous in the long run. Premaxillary osteotomy employed in center B appeared to be associated with less favorable development of the dental arch relationship between 9 and 12 years.

Comparing methods for sampling large- and medium-sized mammals: camera traps and track plots

Activities involving fauna monitoring are usually limited by the lack of resources; therefore, the choice of a proper and efficient methodology is fundamental to maximize the cost-benefit ratio. Both direct and indirect methods can be used to survey mammals, but the latter are preferred due to the difficulty to come in sight of and/or to capture the individuals, besides being cheaper. We compared the performance of two methods to survey medium and large-sized mammal: track plot recording and camera trapping, and their costs were assessed. At Jatai Ecological Station (S21 degrees 31`15 ``- W47 degrees 34`42 ``-Brazil) we installed ten camera traps along a dirt road directly in front of ten track plots, and monitored them for 10 days. We cleaned the plots, adjusted the cameras, and noted down the recorded species daily. Records taken by both methods showed they sample the local richness in different ways (Wilcoxon, T=231; p;;0.01). The track plot method performed better on registering individuals whereas camera trapping provided records which permitted more accurate species identification. The type of infra-red sensor camera used showed a strong bias towards individual body mass (R(2)=0.70; p=0.017), and the variable expenses of this method in a 10-day survey were estimated about 2.04 times higher compared to track plot method; however, in a long run camera trapping becomes cheaper than track plot recording. Concluding, track plot recording is good enough for quick surveys under a limited budget, and camera trapping is best for precise species identification and the investigation of species details, performing better for large animals. When used together, these methods can be complementary.