Search

Introduction: One factor that can affect treatment outcomes is the treatment provider, and this factor has not been extensively studied. This research aimed to evaluate orthodontic treatment quality, length, and efficiency when 2 orthodontists collaborated on treatment, compared with the treatment provided solely by either orthodontist.Methods: A total of 150 consecutively treated subjects were divided into 3 equal groups based on the treating clinician. Patients in group A were treated by orthodontist A, group B by orthodontist B, and group C by both orthodontists in collaboration. The Peer Assessment Rating (PAR), Index of Complexity, Outcome, and Need (ICON), American Board of Orthodontics-Discrepancy Index, and American Board of Orthodontics-Cast and Radiographic Evaluation were used to assess the pretreatment and posttreatment status. Patient age, gender, type of malocclusion, extraction treatment, orthognathic surgery, treatment length, number of visits, and treatment efficiency index were assessed.Results: Posttreatment PAR and ICON indices showed excellent results in all 3 groups. American Board of Orthodontics-Cast and Radiographic Evaluation was significantly higher in group C (25.3 points) than in group A (21.5 points) or group B (22.0 points) (P = 0.014). Patients in group A had significantly shorter treatment time (23 months) than those in either group B or C (26 months) (P = 0.011). Patients in group C required more appointments (27 visits) than those in either group A or B (23 and 25 visits, respectively). The treatment efficiency index showed no statistically significant difference among the 3 groups.Conclusions: There was no difference in treatment quality among the 3 groups, as assessed by the PAR index and ICON. Jointly treated cases required 2 to 4 more visits and had higher American Board of Orthodontics-Cast and Radiograph Evaluation scores than those treated by either orthodontist. Complex cases required 6 to 7 more months when they were treated collaboratively. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objectives: The aim of the study is to determine the specific characteristics of patients diagnosed with head and neck squamous cell carcinoma. Methods: This is a retrospective cross-sectional study of all patients diagnosed histopathologically with head and neck squamous cell carcinoma (HNSCC) at National Guard Governmental Hospital, King Abdulaziz medical city (KAMC), Riyadh, Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, between January 2001 and June 2012.Demographic and topographic data, clinical presentations, management regimens were reviewed. Salivary gland tumors, thyroid cancer, lymphoma, skin and unknown primary tumors were excluded. Result: There were 94 patients diagnosed with HNSCC. The patients’ mean age was 56.87years and 3:1 male to female ratio. Nasopharyngeal SCC 42.55% was the most common primary site, 40% of those were smokers. Tongue represent 45% of oral SCC followed by buccal mucosa which account for 1/4 of those tumors. Nearly more than half of oral SCC patients were smokers. Approximately 60% of the patients had swelling, while 40% had ulcerations, and nearly 36% showed a neck mass. The majority of the cases were diagnosed in stage IV 34% closely followed by stage III which account for almost 33% with a 42.55% of patients having a poorly differentiated tumors. Incisional biopsy was used as a method of diagnosis in nearly 70% of the cases. More than half of the patients had a curative radiotherapy while curative surgery was used in 37% of the cases. Conclusion: This study can help in establishing a cohort longitudinal study of HNSCC. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]