A 'snip' in time: what is the best age to circumcise?

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Circumcision is a common procedure, but regional and societal attitudes differ on whether there is a need for a male to be circumcised and, if so, at what age. This is an important issue for many parents, but also pediatricians, other doctors, policy makers, public health authorities, medical bodies, and males themselves.</p> <p>Discussion</p> <p>We show here that infancy is an optimal time for clinical circumcision because an infant's low mobility facilitates the use of local anesthesia, sutures are not required, healing is quick, cosmetic outcome is usually excellent, costs are minimal, and complications are uncommon. The benefits of infant circumcision include prevention of urinary tract infections (a cause of renal scarring), reduction in risk of inflammatory foreskin conditions such as balanoposthitis, foreskin injuries, phimosis and paraphimosis. When the boy later becomes sexually active he has substantial protection against risk of HIV and other viral sexually transmitted infections such as genital herpes and oncogenic human papillomavirus, as well as penile cancer. The risk of cervical cancer in his female partner(s) is also reduced. Circumcision in adolescence or adulthood may evoke a fear of pain, penile damage or reduced sexual pleasure, even though unfounded. Time off work or school will be needed, cost is much greater, as are risks of complications, healing is slower, and stitches or tissue glue must be used.</p> <p>Summary</p> <p>Infant circumcision is safe, simple, convenient and cost-effective. The available evidence strongly supports infancy as the optimal time for circumcision.</p

The accuracy of histological assessments of dental development and age at death

Histological analyses of dental development have been conducted for several decades despite few studies assessing the accuracy of such methods. Using known-period incremental features, the crown formation time and age at death of five pig-tailed macaques (Macaca nemestrina) were estimated with standard histological techniques and compared with known ages. Estimates of age at death ranged from 8.6% underestimations to 15.0% overestimations, with an average 3.5% overestimate and a 7.2% average absolute difference. Several sources of error were identified relating to preparation quality and section obliquity. These results demonstrate that histological analyses of dental development involving counts and measurements of short- and long-period incremental features may yield accurate estimates, particularly in well-prepared material. Values from oblique sections (or most naturally fractured teeth) should be regarded with caution, as obliquity leads to inflated cuspal enamel formation time and underestimated imbricational formation time. Additionally, Shellis's formula for extension rate and crown formation time estimation was tested, which significantly overestimated crown formation time due to underestimated extension rate. It is suggested that Shellis' method should not be applied to teeth with short, rapid periods of development, and further study is necessary to validate this application in other material