A fatal case of recurrent amiodarone-induced thyrotoxicosis after percutaneous tracheotomy: a case report

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Amiodarone is a widely used antiarrythmic drug, which may produce secondary effects on the thyroid. In 14–18% of amiodarone-treated patients, there is overt thyroid dysfunction, usually in the form of amiodarone-induced thyrotoxicosis, which can be difficult to manage with standard medical treatment.</p> <p>Case presentation</p> <p>Presented is the case of a 65-year-old man, under chronic treatment of atrial fibrillation with amiodarone, who was admitted to the Intensive Care Unit with acute cardio-respiratory failure and fever. He was recently hospitalized with respiratory distress, attributed to amiodarone-induced pulmonary fibrosis. Clinical and laboratory investigation revealed thyrotoxicosis due to amiodarone treatment. He was begun on thionamide, prednisone and beta-blockers. After a short term improvement of his clinical status the patient underwent percutaneous tracheotomy due to weaning failure from mechanical ventilation, which led to the development of recurrent thyrotoxicosis, unresponsive to medical treatment. Finally, the patient developed multiple organ failure and died, seven days later.</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>We suggest that percutaneous tracheotomy could precipitate a thyrotoxic crisis, particularly in non-euthyroid patients suffering from concurrent severe illness and should be performed only in parallel with emergency thyroid surgery, when indicated.</p

Predictors of long-term stability of maxillary dental arch dimensions in patients treated with a transpalatal arch followed by fixed appliances

Background: The aim of this retrospective study was to identify which dental and/or cephalometric variables were predictors of long-term maxillary dental arch stability in patients treated with a transpalatal arch (TPA) during the mixed dentition phase followed by full fixed appliances in the permanent dentition. Methods: Thirty-six patients, treated with TPA followed up by full fixed appliances, were divided into stable and relapse groups based on the long-term presence or not of relapse. Intercuspid, interpremolar and intermolar widths, arch length and perimeter, crowding, and upper incisor proclination were evaluated before treatment (T0), post-TPA treatment (T1), post-fixed appliance treatment (T2), and a minimum of 3 years after full fixed appliances’ removal (T3). A binary logistic regression was performed thereafter to evaluate the impact of the dental arch and cephalometric measurements at T1 and the changes between T0 and T1 as predictive variables for relapse at T3. Results: The proposed model explained 42.7 % of the variance in treatment stability and correctly classified 72.2 % of the sample. Of the seven predictive variables, only upper anterior crowding (p = 0.029) was statistically significant. For every millimeter of decreased crowding at T1 (after TPA treatment/before starting the fixed orthodontic treatment), there was an increase of 3.57 times in the odds of having stability. Conclusions: The best predictor of relapse was maxillary crowding before treatment. The odds of relapse increase by 3.6 times for every millimeter of crowding at baseline

The impact of extraction vs nonextraction treatment on soft tissue changes in Class I borderline malocclusions

Objective: To obtain through the use of discriminant analysis a relatively bias-free sample of extraction and nonextraction, Class I, equally susceptible to both treatments&apos; malocclusions and to analyze retrospectively the soft tissue changes between the two different treatment groups. Materials and Methods: The cephalometric, model, and demographic data of 215 patients (females and males) fueled a stepwise discriminant analysis that provided the borderline homogenous subsample (30 extraction and 32 nonextraction cases). The pretreatment and postreatment cephalograms of the borderline sample were then subjected to a thorough soft tissue cephalometric analysis. Results: The results indicated that the three variables that played the most important role in the clinician&apos;s treatment decision were indicators of lower crowding, soft tissue convexity, and lower incisor protrusion. Significant differences (P &lt;.001) regarding upper and lower lip protrusion, upper lip thickness (P &lt;.05), and the nasiolabial angle (P &lt;.05) occurred. Conclusion: Extraction treatment of Class I borderline malocclusions led to significant soft tissue changes regarding the upper and lower lip position and thickness as well as the nasiolabial angle, whereas the nonextraction treatment resulted in significant upper lip retraction and lower lip protraction. © 2012 by The EH Angle Education and Research Foundation, Inc

Treatment outcomes after extraction and nonextraction treatment evaluated with the American board of orthodontics objective grading system

Introduction: A controversy exists regarding better treatment outcomes when patients treated with extractions and without extractions are evaluated. The aims of this study were to use the American Board of Orthodontics objective grading system (ABO-OGS) to evaluate and compare treatment outcomes in extraction vs nonextraction Class I patients and to determine whether the treatment choice was a significant predictor of success according to the ABO examination. © 2014 by the American Association of Orthodontists

Extraction decision and identification of treatment predictors in Class I malocclusions

Background: The extraction rate in orthodontics varies throughout the years. While the extraction decision is easily made or excluded in clear-cut cases, it still remains controversial what makes an orthodontist decide to extract in borderline cases. The aim of this retrospective study was to identify the percentage of extraction cases in a large group of Class I malocclusions and to clarify which variables contributed most to the extraction decision. Methods: The sample consisted of 542 randomly selected records of Class I patients treated in a university graduate program and in five private orthodontic offices. Of these patients, 331 were female and 211 male. The mean age was 14.55 (standard deviation (SD) 5.36) for the non-extraction group and 14.52 (SD 4.86) for the extraction group. The extensive series of 32 linear and angular measurements derived from the cephalometric analysis and the dental casts, along with the variables of age and gender, fueled a stepwise discriminant analysis. Results: The percentage of the patients treated with four first premolar extractions was 26.8%. The results showed that the variables of lower crowding, lower lip to E-plane, upper crowding, and overjet accounted most for the decision to extract at a very significant level (Sig. 0.000). The discriminant analysis assigned a classification power of 83.9% to the predictive model (p &lt; 0.0001). Fisher&apos;s linear discriminant functions provided a mathematical model, according to which any case can be classified into the adequate treatment group. Conclusions: In a large contemporary sample of 542 Class I patients, the extraction rate was 26.8%. The most important measurements when the orthodontist decides extractions in Class I cases are lower crowding, lower lip to E-plane, upper crowding, and overjet. In clinical orthodontic practice, the findings facilitate treatment by providing evidence-based treatment predictors for Class I malocclusions. © 2013 Konstantonis et al.; licensee Springer

Torturous path of an elastic gap band: Interdisciplinary approach to orthodontic treatment for a young patient who lost both maxillary central incisors after do-it-yourself treatment

Spacing between the maxillary anterior teeth is a common concern for young patients and their parents. Patients often consider a diastema to be an annoying but minor problem; they might consult their general dentists for help, or try to address the issue themselves by applying elastic “gap bands.” Moreover, parents, without any informed consent, sometimes accept this erroneous method as an easy and inexpensive treatment approach. A 9-year-old boy had severe acute periodontitis involving the maxillary central incisors caused by the placement of an elastic band and its apical migration. Despite periodontal and surgical interventions, the maxillary central incisors were finally extracted, and the patient started orthodontic treatment. The orthodontic treatment plan included maxillary lateral incisor substitution to replace the lost central incisors and mesialization of the maxillary posterior dentition. An interdisciplinary approach with excellent cooperation among the orthodontist, general dentist, and other dental specialists obtained an esthetically pleasing and optimized functional result. Treating the diastema between the anterior teeth with elastic gap bands and without fixed orthodontic appliances should be avoided. Patients should seek proper orthodontic advice for even small-scale orthodontic problems to prevent catastrophic outcomes, as exhibited in this case report. © 2018 American Association of Orthodontist

Soft tissue changes following extraction vs. nonextraction orthodontic fixed appliance treatment: a systematic review and meta-analysis

The aim of this systematic review was to assess the effect of systematic extraction protocols during orthodontic fixed appliance treatment on the soft tissue profile of human patients. Nine databases were searched until December 2016 for controlled clinical studies including premolar extraction or nonextraction treatment. After elimination of duplicate studies, data extraction, and risk-of-bias assessment according to the Cochrane guidelines, random-effects meta-analyses of mean differences (MD) or standardized mean differences (SMD) and their 95% CIs were performed, followed by subgroup, meta-regression, and sensitivity analyses. Extraction treatment was associated with increased lower lip retraction (24 studies; 1,456 patients; MD = 1.96 mm), upper lip retraction (21 studies; 1,149 patients; MD = 1.26 mm), nasolabial angle (21 studies; 1,089 patients; MD = 4.21°), soft-tissue profile convexity (six studies; 408 patients; MD = 1.24°), and profile pleasantness (three studies; 249 patients; SMD = 0.41). Patient age, extraction protocol, and amount of upper incisor retraction during treatment were significantly associated with the observed extraction effects, while the quality of evidence was very low in all cases due to risk of bias, baseline confounding, inconsistency, and imprecision. Although tooth extractions seem to affect patient profile, existing studies are heterogenous and no consistent predictions of profile response can be made. © 2018 Eur J Oral Sc

Arch-width changes in extraction vs nonextraction treatments in matched Class I borderline malocclusions

Introduction The aims of this study were to identify a sample of borderline Class I extraction and nonextraction patients and to investigate posttreatment changes in arch-width and perimeter measurements. Methods A parent sample of 580 Class I patients was subjected to discriminant analysis, and a borderline subsample of 62 patients, 31 treated with extraction of 4 first premolars and 31 treated without extractions, was obtained. The patients&apos; plaster casts were digitally scanned, and the maxillary and mandibular intercanine and intermolar widths and perimeters were assessed. Results The extraction group showed increases in maxillary and mandibular intercanine widths (P &lt;0.001) and decreases in mandibular intermolar width and in maxillary and mandibular perimeters (P &lt;0.001). The nonextraction group showed increases in all 4 arch-width measurements (P ≤0.003), whereas the maxillary and mandibular perimeters were maintained. The posttreatment differences between the 2 groups showed significant differences in the maxillary (P &lt;0.001) and mandibular intermolar widths (P &lt;0.001). Also, the comparison of the arch perimeters between the 2 treatment groups showed adjusted differences of −8.51 mm (P &lt;0.001) and −8.44 mm (P &lt;0.001) for the maxillary and mandibular arches, respectively. The intercanine widths showed no changes between the 2 treatment groups. Conclusions Borderline Class I patients treated with extraction of 4 first premolars had decreased maxillary and mandibular intermolar and perimeter measurements compared with nonextraction patients. The maxillary and mandibular intercanine widths showed no significant difference between the 2 treatment groups. © 2016 American Association of Orthodontist