RESUMO

OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to assess the frequency with which orthodontic patients decided to shift to another type of orthodontic appliance, among conventional metal brackets, ceramic brackets, lingual brackets and clear aligner, based on their personal experiences of pain, ulcers, bad breath, hygiene issues and social difficulties. MATERIAL AND METHODS: This study comprises of patients seeking orthodontic treatment. The sample (n = 500; age group = 19-25 years) was divided equally into four groups based on the treatment modality: conventional metal brackets, ceramic brackets, lingual brackets and clear aligner. Patients rated the questionnaire using a visual analogue scale, to assess variables (such as pain, ulcer etc) that impact various treatment modalities. Subsequently, patients from all groups provided feedback regarding their treatment experiences, and expressed their preference for an alternative modality. Intergroup comparison among the four groups was done using one-way analysis of variance with Tukey's HSD post-hoc test (p ≤ 0.05). RESULTS: Patients who received lingual brackets reported higher levels of pain and ulceration, as compared to those who received clear aligners. All four groups showed statistically significant differences for ulcers during treatment (p ≤ 0.05). Of the 125 patients who received conventional metal brackets, 28% expressed a preference for clear aligner therapy, while 20% preferred ceramic brackets. In the lingual group, 56% of 125 patients preferred clear aligner therapy, and 8% preferred ceramic brackets to complete their treatment. In the ceramic group, 83% did not want to switch, whereas 17% desired to switch to clear aligner, while in aligner group no patient desired to switch. CONCLUSIONS: A higher percentage of patients from lingual brackets group chose to shift to clear aligners, followed by conventional metal brackets group and by ceramic brackets group, in this descending order. The clear aligner group demonstrated fewer issues than the other treatment modalities.

Assuntos

RESUMO

In recent years, cancer has become one of the primary causes of mortality, approximately 10 million deaths worldwide each year. The most advanced, chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T cell immunotherapy has turned out as a promising treatment for cancer. CAR-T cell therapy involves the genetic modification of T cells obtained from the patient's blood, and infusion back to the patients. CAR-T cell immunotherapy has led to a significant improvement in the remission rates of hematological cancers. CAR-T cell therapy presently limited to hematological cancers, there are ongoing efforts to develop additional CAR constructs such as bispecific CAR, tandem CAR, inhibitory CAR, combined antigens, CRISPR gene-editing, and nanoparticle delivery. With these advancements, CAR-T cell therapy holds promise concerning potential to improve upon traditional cancer treatments such as chemotherapy and radiation while reducing associated toxicities. This review covers recent advances and advantages of CAR-T cell immunotherapy.

Assuntos

RESUMO

ABSTRACT Objective: This study aimed to assess the frequency with which orthodontic patients decided to shift to another type of orthodontic appliance, among conventional metal brackets, ceramic brackets, lingual brackets and clear aligner, based on their personal experiences of pain, ulcers, bad breath, hygiene issues and social difficulties. Material and Methods: This study comprises of patients seeking orthodontic treatment. The sample (n = 500; age group = 19-25 years) was divided equally into four groups based on the treatment modality: conventional metal brackets, ceramic brackets, lingual brackets and clear aligner. Patients rated the questionnaire using a visual analogue scale, to assess variables (such as pain, ulcer etc) that impact various treatment modalities. Subsequently, patients from all groups provided feedback regarding their treatment experiences, and expressed their preference for an alternative modality. Intergroup comparison among the four groups was done using one-way analysis of variance with Tukey's HSD post-hoc test (p ≤ 0.05). Results: Patients who received lingual brackets reported higher levels of pain and ulceration, as compared to those who received clear aligners. All four groups showed statistically significant differences for ulcers during treatment (p ≤ 0.05). Of the 125 patients who received conventional metal brackets, 28% expressed a preference for clear aligner therapy, while 20% preferred ceramic brackets. In the lingual group, 56% of 125 patients preferred clear aligner therapy, and 8% preferred ceramic brackets to complete their treatment. In the ceramic group, 83% did not want to switch, whereas 17% desired to switch to clear aligner, while in aligner group no patient desired to switch. Conclusions: A higher percentage of patients from lingual brackets group chose to shift to clear aligners, followed by conventional metal brackets group and by ceramic brackets group, in this descending order. The clear aligner group demonstrated fewer issues than the other treatment modalities.

RESUMO Objetivo: Este estudo teve como objetivo avaliar a frequência com que pacientes ortodônticos decidiram mudar para outro tipo de aparelho ortodôntico, entre braquetes convencionais de metal, braquetes cerâmicos, braquetes linguais e alinhadores transparentes, com base em suas experiências pessoais de dor, aftas, mau hálito, problemas de higiene e dificuldades sociais. Material e Métodos: Esse estudo foi composto por pacientes que procuram tratamento ortodôntico. A amostra (n = 500; faixa etária = 19-25 anos) foi dividida igualmente em quatro grupos, com base na modalidade de tratamento: braquetes metálicos convencionais, braquetes cerâmicos, braquetes linguais e alinhadores transparentes. Os pacientes responderam a um questionário, usando uma escala visual analógica, para avaliar variáveis como dor e aftas, que impactam diferentes modalidades de tratamento. Posteriormente, os pacientes de todos os grupos forneceram feedback sobre suas experiências de tratamento e expressaram sua preferência por uma modalidade alternativa. A comparação intergrupos entre os quatro grupos foi feita usando análise de variância unidirecional com teste post-hoc HSD de Tukey (p ≤ 0,05). Resultados: Os pacientes que usaram braquetes linguais relataram níveis mais elevados de dor e aftas, em comparação com aqueles que usaram alinhadores transparentes. Todos os quatro grupos apresentaram diferenças estatisticamente significativas para aftas durante o tratamento (p ≤ 0,05). Dos 125 pacientes que usaram braquetes metálicos convencionais, 28% expressaram preferência pelo tratamento com alinhadores transparentes, enquanto 20% preferiram braquetes cerâmicos. No grupo com braquetes linguais, 56% dos 125 pacientes preferiram o tratamento com alinhadores transparentes e 8% preferiram braquetes cerâmicos para completar o tratamento. No grupo com braquetes cerâmicos, 83% não queriam trocar de tratamento, enquanto 17% desejavam mudar para os alinhadores transparentes; enquanto no grupo de alinhadores nenhum paciente desejou mudar. Conclusões: Uma porcentagem maior de pacientes do grupo com braquetes linguais optou pela mudança para alinhadores transparentes, seguido pelo grupo com braquetes metálicos convencionais e pelo grupo com braquetes cerâmicos, em ordem decrescente. O grupo de alinhadores transparentes demonstrou menos problemas do que as outras modalidades de tratamento.

RESUMO

OBJECTIVE: To analyze and compare the Von Mises stress and principal stress distribution in palatal bone around the palatal implant in lingual orthodontics (LiO) for single and double palatal implant systems with varying lengths of lever arm. METHODS: Two groups were assessed: single (Group 1) and double (Group 2) palatal implant systems, which were further divided into two subgroups, based on lever arm length, for analyzing stress in the palatal bone around the implant. Hence, two 3D finite element models of bilateral maxillary first premolar extraction cases were constructed in each system. Lingual brackets (0.018-in slot) were positioned at the center of the clinical crown. In both systems, 150g of retraction force was applied, and ANSYS v. 12.1 software was used to analyze and compare stress in the palatal bone around the palatal implant. RESULTS: In this study, higher stress was observed at the inner threaded interface of cortical bone. Magnitude of Von Mises stress was higher in Group 2 (0.63 MPa and 0.65 MPa) in comparison to Group 1 (0.29 MPa and 0.29 MPa). Similarly, magnitude of principal stress was higher in Group 2, in comparison to Group 1. Higher stress was observed in the apical region of the implant-bone interface of cancellous bone. CONCLUSION: This study concluded that the Von Misses stress as well as principal stress in the palatal bone were within the optimal limit in both groups. Finally, it can be concluded that both systems (single and double palatal implant) were safe for the patients in clinical use of 150g of retraction force.

Assuntos

RESUMO

ABSTRACT Objective: To analyze and compare the Von Mises stress and principal stress distribution in palatal bone around the palatal implant in lingual orthodontics (LiO) for single and double palatal implant systems with varying lengths of lever arm. Methods: Two groups were assessed: single (Group 1) and double (Group 2) palatal implant systems, which were further divided into two subgroups, based on lever arm length, for analyzing stress in the palatal bone around the implant. Hence, two 3D finite element models of bilateral maxillary first premolar extraction cases were constructed in each system. Lingual brackets (0.018-in slot) were positioned at the center of the clinical crown. In both systems, 150g of retraction force was applied, and ANSYS v. 12.1 software was used to analyze and compare stress in the palatal bone around the palatal implant. Results: In this study, higher stress was observed at the inner threaded interface of cortical bone. Magnitude of Von Mises stress was higher in Group 2 (0.63 MPa and 0.65 MPa) in comparison to Group 1 (0.29 MPa and 0.29 MPa). Similarly, magnitude of principal stress was higher in Group 2, in comparison to Group 1. Higher stress was observed in the apical region of the implant-bone interface of cancellous bone. Conclusion: This study concluded that the Von Misses stress as well as principal stress in the palatal bone were within the optimal limit in both groups. Finally, it can be concluded that both systems (single and double palatal implant) were safe for the patients in clinical use of 150g of retraction force.

RESUMO Objetivo: Analisar e comparar as tensões de Von Mises e a distribuição das tensões principais no osso palatino ao redor de implantes palatinos em Ortodontia Lingual (OL) para sistemas de implantes palatinos unitários ou duplos com comprimentos variados do braço de alavanca. Métodos: Foram delineados dois grupos para o presente estudo: Grupo 1 - com sistema de implante palatino unitário e Grupo 2 - com sistema de implantes palatinos duplos. Em seguida, os grupos foram divididos em dois subgrupos, com base no comprimento do braço de alavanca, para analisar as tensões no osso palatino ao redor do implante. Para cada sistema, foram construídos dois modelos 3D de elementos finitos (MEF) de casos com extração bilateral de primeiros pré-molares superiores. Braquetes linguais (slot 0,018") foram posicionados no centro das coroas clínicas. Nos dois sistemas, foram aplicados 150g de força de retração nos dentes anteriores, e o software ANSYS v. 12.1 foi usado para analisar e comparar as tensões no osso palatino ao redor dos implantes. Resultados: Foram observados maiores níveis de tensões na parte interna rosqueada no osso cortical. A magnitude das tensões de Von Mises foi maior no Grupo 2 (0,63MPa e 0,65MPa) em comparação ao Grupo 1 (0,29MPa e 0,29MPa). De forma semelhante, foi observada maior magnitude das tensões principais no Grupo 2 do que no Grupo 1. Maiores tensões foram observadas na região apical da interface osso/implante no tecido ósseo esponjoso. Conclusão: A tensões de Von Mises e as tensões principais no osso palatino ficaram dentro do limite ideal em ambos os grupos. Ambos os sistemas de implantes palatinos (unitário e duplo) foram seguros para o uso clínico em pacientes com força de retração de 150g.