Efeitos do AEB conjugado e do Bionator no tratamento da Classe II, 1ª divisão Treatment effects of maxillary splint and Bionator appliances in the treatment of Class II division 1 malocclusion

Este estudo cefalométrico objetivou avaliar as alterações dentárias e esqueléticas, em jovens com má oclusão de Classe II, 1ª divisão, tratados com o aparelho extrabucal conjugado (splint maxilar) e com o Bionator. Estes dois grupos experimentais foram comparados a um grupo de jovens portadores da mesma má oclusão que não receberam tratamento, pareados pelo gênero, idade, tempo de observação e grandezas cefalométricas iniciais. A amostra constou de 180 telerradiografias em norma lateral de 90 jovens, divididos em três grupos de 30, sendo 15 do gênero masculino e 15 do feminino. Os jovens do grupo 1 foram mantidos como controle e apresentaram uma idade inicial média de 10,02 anos e foram observados pelo período médio de 1,49 anos. O grupo 2 foi submetido ao tratamento utilizando o aparelho extrabucal conjugado (splint maxilar), com idade inicial média de 10,02 anos e tempo de observação de 1,78 anos. O grupo 3 foi tratado com o Bionator por um tempo médio de 1,52 anos e os jovens apresentavam idade inicial média de 10,35 anos. A análise dos resultados mostrou que o tratamento da má oclusão de Classe II, 1ª divisão com o AEB conjugado e com o Bionator resultou de efeitos específicos e inerentes a cada aparelho. Os resultados patentearam que o deslocamento anterior da maxila foi restringido significantemente pelo tratamento com o AEB conjugado. O Bionator promoveu um aumento significante na protrusão mandibular, enquanto que o AEB conjugado mostrou efeitos esqueléticos menos evidentes. No entanto, ambos aparelhos estudados produziram um aumento nos comprimentos efetivo e do corpo da mandíbula, com valores maiores para o grupo 2. A relação maxilo-mandibular melhorou significantemente nos grupos tratados em comparação ao grupo controle. A análise do padrão de crescimento craniofacial e das alturas faciais não revelou alteração significante entre os grupos. Em relação às alterações dentoalveolares ambos aparelhos provocaram inclinação para lingual e retrusão dos incisivos superiores, porém os efeitos do AEB conjugado foram significantemente mais intensos. Os incisivos inferiores foram afetados de maneira distinta pelos aparelhos. No grupo tratado com o AEB conjugado, os incisivos lingualizaram e retruíram enquanto que o grupo tratado com o Bionator apresentou inclinação para vestibular e protrusão destes dentes. Os molares inferiores apresentaram um maior desenvolvimento vertical e horizontal nos grupos 2 e 3. Os primeiros molares superiores distalizaram no grupo tratado com o AEB conjugado, enquanto nos grupos 3 (Bionator) e controle houve mesialização. Deste modo, verificou-se que ambos os protocolos de tratamento propiciaram alterações esqueléticas, dentárias e tegumentares, distintas e clinicamente relevantes para a correção da má oclusão de Classe II, 1ª divisão.<br>The purpose of this investigation was to evaluate and compare the cephalometric changes of maxillary splint and bionator appliances on individuals with Class II, division 1 malocclusion. Lateral cephalograms were available for 90 patients of both sex, divided in three groups of 30 each one. The first group served as a control group, with initial mean age of 10.02 years. The second group was treated with maxillary splint appliance with initial mean age of 10.02 years. The group 3 was treated with Bionator appliance with initial mean age of 10.35 years. The lateral cephalometric headfilms were taken of each patient at the beginning and the end of treatment, in a total of 180 headfilms. The cephalometric variables were analyzed with statistical tests. The results showed that only maxillary splint influenced changes in forward growth of the maxilla and Bionator appliances provides a statistically significant increase in mandibular protrusion. However, it was observed that both appliances provides an increase in total mandibular and body length, with greater values in group 2, but these results do not showed statistically differences. This study indicated that both appliances provide an improvement in the maxillomandibular relationship, compared to the control group. In addition, there were no statistically significant differences in the craniofacial growth pattern among the three groups nor in the facial heights. It was observed that both appliances produced lingual inclination and retrusion of the upper incisors. Maxillary splint provided lingual tipping of the lower incisors while Bionator produced labial tipping and protrusion of these teeth. The lower molars showed a greater vertical development and extrusion in experimental groups. The maxillary splint produced distal movement of the first upper molars and bionator showed mesial inclination

A randomised, blinded, trial of clopidogrel versus aspirin in patients at risk of ischaemic events (CAPRIE). CAPRIE Steering Committee

Many clinical trials have evaluated the benefit of long-term use of antiplatelet drugs in reducing the risk of clinical thrombotic events. Aspirin and ticlopidine have been shown to be effective, but both have potentially serious adverse effects. Clopidogrel, a new thienopyridine derivative similar to ticlopidine, is an inhibitor of platelet aggregation induced by adenosine diphosphate. METHODS: CAPRIE was a randomised, blinded, international trial designed to assess the relative efficacy of clopidogrel (75 mg once daily) and aspirin (325 mg once daily) in reducing the risk of a composite outcome cluster of ischaemic stroke, myocardial infarction, or vascular death; their relative safety was also assessed. The population studied comprised subgroups of patients with atherosclerotic vascular disease manifested as either recent ischaemic stroke, recent myocardial infarction, or symptomatic peripheral arterial disease. Patients were followed for 1 to 3 years. FINDINGS: 19,185 patients, with more than 6300 in each of the clinical subgroups, were recruited over 3 years, with a mean follow-up of 1.91 years. There were 1960 first events included in the outcome cluster on which an intention-to-treat analysis showed that patients treated with clopidogrel had an annual 5.32% risk of ischaemic stroke, myocardial infarction, or vascular death compared with 5.83% with aspirin. These rates reflect a statistically significant (p = 0.043) relative-risk reduction of 8.7% in favour of clopidogrel (95% Cl 0.3-16.5). Corresponding on-treatment analysis yielded a relative-risk reduction of 9.4%. There were no major differences in terms of safety. Reported adverse experiences in the clopidogrel and aspirin groups judged to be severe included rash (0.26% vs 0.10%), diarrhoea (0.23% vs 0.11%), upper gastrointestinal discomfort (0.97% vs 1.22%), intracranial haemorrhage (0.33% vs 0.47%), and gastrointestinal haemorrhage (0.52% vs 0.72%), respectively. There were ten (0.10%) patients in the clopidogrel group with significant reductions in neutrophils (< 1.2 x 10(9)/L) and 16 (0.17%) in the aspirin group. INTERPRETATION: Long-term administration of clopidogrel to patients with atherosclerotic vascular disease is more effective than aspirin in reducing the combined risk of ischaemic stroke, myocardial infarction, or vascular death. The overall safety profile of clopidogrel is at least as good as that of medium-dose aspirin