Orofacial dyskinesia induced by nasal Ritalin(R) (methylphenidate) sniffing: A rare case report from Switzerland

Ritalin® (methylphenidate) is an amphetamine-like prescription stimulant commonly used in the treatment of attention deficit hyperactivity disorder in children and adults. Recently, the recreational use of Ritalin has increased, particularly among young adults. Well-known symptoms of intoxication include signs of sympathetic nervous stimulation, such as agitation, anxiety, tachycardia, hypertension, headache, tremor, and dizziness. This case report describes oral dyskinesia as a rare presentation of Ritalin intoxication, with the review of pathophysiology and some epidemiological data.

Orofacial/cerebral injuries and the use of mouthguards by professional athletes in Switzerland

The objective of the present study was to measure the occurrence of orofacial and cerebral injuries in different sports and to survey the awareness of athletes and officials concerning the use of mouthguards during sport activities. Two hundred and sixty-seven professional athletes and 63 officials participating in soccer, handball, basketball and ice hockey were interviewed. The frequency of orofacial and cerebral trauma during sport practice was recorded and the reason for using and not using mouthguards was assessed. A great difference in orofacial and cerebral injuries was found when comparing the different kinds of sports and comparing athletes with or without mouthguards. 45% of the players had suffered injuries when not wearing mouthguards. Most injuries were found in ice hockey, (59%), whereas only 24% of the soccer players suffered injuries when not wearing mouthguards. Sixty-eight percentage of the players wearing mouthguards had never suffered any orofacial and cerebral injuries. Two hundred and twenty-four athletes (84%) did not use a mouthguard despite general acceptance by 150 athletes (56%). Although the awareness of mouthguards among officials was very high (59%), only 25% of them would support the funding of mouthguards and 5% would enforce regulations. Athletes as well as coaches should be informed about the high risk of oral injuries when performing contact sports. Doctors and dentists need to recommend a more intensive education of students in sports medicine and sports dentistry, and to increase their willingness to become a team dentist.

Periodontal disease progression in subjects with orofacial clefts over a 25-year follow-up period

AIMS: To assess rates of periodontal disease progression in subjects with cleft lip, alveolus and palate (CLAP) over a 25-year period without regular maintenance care in a specialist setting and to compare those with those of subjects without alveolar clefts, i.e. cleft lip (CL) or cleft palate (CP). MATERIAL AND METHODS: Ten subjects with CLAP and 10 subjects with CL/CP were examined in 1979, 1987, 1993 and 2004. Probing pocket depth (PPD), clinical attachment level (CAL), bleeding on probing (BoP) and plaque control record (PCR) scores were recorded in all 20 subjects. RESULTS: High plaque and BoP scores were recorded at all examinations in both groups. Over 25 years, a statistically significant loss of mean full-mouth CAL of 1.52 +/- 0.12 mm (SD) and 1.66 +/- 0.15 mm occurred in the CLAP and CL/CP group respectively (p<0.05). A statistically significant increase (p<0.05) in mean full-mouth PPD of 0.35 +/- 0.12 mm was observed in the CL/CP group, whereas only a trend for a mean full-mouth increase in PPD of 0.09 +/- 0.11 mm was observed in the CLAP group. In subjects with CLAP, a statistically significant increase (p<0.05) in PPD of 0.92 +/- 1.13 mm at cleft sites was observed compared with that of 0.17 +/- 0.76 mm at control sites. With respect to CAL, the loss at the corresponding sites amounted to 2.71 +/- 1.46 and to 2.27 +/- 1.62 mm, respectively (p=0.36). CONCLUSIONS: When stringent and well-defined supportive periodontal therapy was not provided, subjects with orofacial clefts were at high risk for periodontal disease progression. Over 25 years, alveolar cleft sites tended to have more periodontal tissue destruction compared with control sites.

Three-dimensional imaging methods for quantitative analysis of facial soft tissues and skeletal morphology in patients with orofacial clefts: a systematic review.

BACKGROUND Current guidelines for evaluating cleft palate treatments are mostly based on two-dimensional (2D) evaluation, but three-dimensional (3D) imaging methods to assess treatment outcome are steadily rising. OBJECTIVE To identify 3D imaging methods for quantitative assessment of soft tissue and skeletal morphology in patients with cleft lip and palate. DATA SOURCES Literature was searched using PubMed (1948-2012), EMBASE (1980-2012), Scopus (2004-2012), Web of Science (1945-2012), and the Cochrane Library. The last search was performed September 30, 2012. Reference lists were hand searched for potentially eligible studies. There was no language restriction. STUDY SELECTION We included publications using 3D imaging techniques to assess facial soft tissue or skeletal morphology in patients older than 5 years with a cleft lip with/or without cleft palate. We reviewed studies involving the facial region when at least 10 subjects in the sample size had at least one cleft type. Only primary publications were included. DATA EXTRACTION Independent extraction of data and quality assessments were performed by two observers. RESULTS Five hundred full text publications were retrieved, 144 met the inclusion criteria, with 63 high quality studies. There were differences in study designs, topics studied, patient characteristics, and success measurements; therefore, only a systematic review could be conducted. Main 3D-techniques that are used in cleft lip and palate patients are CT, CBCT, MRI, stereophotogrammetry, and laser surface scanning. These techniques are mainly used for soft tissue analysis, evaluation of bone grafting, and changes in the craniofacial skeleton. Digital dental casts are used to evaluate treatment and changes over time. CONCLUSION Available evidence implies that 3D imaging methods can be used for documentation of CLP patients. No data are available yet showing that 3D methods are more informative than conventional 2D methods. Further research is warranted to elucidate it.

Regional facial asymmetries in unilateral orofacial clefts

OBJECTIVES Assess facial asymmetry in subjects with unilateral cleft lip (UCL), unilateral cleft lip and alveolus (UCLA), and unilateral cleft lip, alveolus, and palate (UCLP), and to evaluate which area of the face is most asymmetrical. METHODS Standardized three-dimensional facial images of 58 patients (9 UCL, 21 UCLA, and 28 UCLP; age range: 8.6-12.3 years) and 121 controls (age range 9-12 years) were mirrored and distance maps were created. Absolute mean asymmetry values were calculated for the whole face, cheek, nose, lips, and chin. One-way analysis of variance, Kruskal-Wallis, and t-test were used to assess the differences between clefts and controls for the whole face and separate areas. RESULTS Clefts and controls differ significantly for the whole face as well as in all areas. Asymmetry is distributed differently over the face for all groups. In UCLA, the nose was significantly more asymmetric compared with chin and cheek (P = 0.038 and 0.024, respectively). For UCL, significant differences in asymmetry between nose and chin and chin and cheek were present (P = 0.038 and 0.046, respectively). In the control group, the chin was the most asymmetric area compared to lip and nose (P = 0.002 and P = 0.001, respectively) followed by the nose (P = 0.004). In UCLP, the nose, followed by the lips, was the most asymmetric area compared to chin, cheek (P < 0.001 and P = 0.016, respectively). LIMITATIONS Despite division into regional areas, the method may still exclude or underrate smaller local areas in the face, which are better visualized in a facial colour coded distance map than quantified by distance numbers. The UCL subsample is small. CONCLUSION Each type of cleft has its own distinct asymmetry pattern. Children with unilateral clefts show more facial asymmetry than children without clefts.