Outcome assessment of Invisalign and traditional orthodontic treatment compared with the American Board of Orthodontics objective grading system.

INTRODUCTION: This treatment-outcome assessment objectively compares Invisalign (Align Technology, Santa Clara, Calif) treatment with braces. METHODS: This study, a retrospective cohort analysis, was conducted in New York, NY, in 2004. Records from 2 groups of 48 patients (Invisalign and braces groups) were evaluated by using methods from the American Board of Orthodontics Phase III examination. The discrepancy index was used to analyze pretreatment records to control for initial severity of malocclusion. The objective grading system (OGS) was used to systematically grade posttreatment records. Statistical analyses evaluated treatment outcome, duration, and strengths and weaknesses of Invisalign compared with braces. RESULTS: The Invisalign group lost 13 OGS points more than the braces group on average, and the OGS passing rate for Invisalign was 27% lower than that for braces. Invisalign scores were consistently lower than braces scores for buccolingual inclination, occlusal contacts, occlusal relationships, and overjet. Invisalign's OGS scores were negatively correlated to initial overjet, occlusion, and buccal posterior crossibite. Invisalign patients finished 4 months sooner than those with fixed appliances on average. P < .05 was used to determine statistically significant differences. CONCLUSIONS: According to the OGS, Invisalign did not treat malocclusions as well as braces in this sample. Invisalign was especially deficient in its ability to correct large anteroposterior discrepancies and occlusal contacts. The strengths of Invisalign were its ability to close spaces and correct anterior rotations and marginal ridge heights. This study might help clinicians to determine which patients are best suited for Invisalign treatment.     

Immunization-induced inflammatory infiltration of the central nervous system in transgenic mice expressing a microbial antigen in astrocytes

Transgenic mice expressing a defined microbial antigen from central nervous system (CNS) cell type-specific promoters can be utilized to investigate the consequences of induction of peripheral immune responses to foreign antigens produced by different CNS cell types. Immunization of mice expressing β-galactosidase (β-gal) in astrocytes with this protein resulted in antigen-dependent infiltration of the CNS by mononuclear cells, principally CD4⁺ T lymphocytes and monocyte/macrophages. The perivascular and intraparenchymal infiltrates, which were located predominantly in the hippocampal formation and cerebellum, the areas of highest β-gal expression, were associated with astrocytosis, microgliosis, and a generalized increase in blood-brain barrier permeability. The resemblance of these pathological changes to aspects of human immune inflammatory CNS disorders e.g. multiple sclerosis, suggests that an initiating step in the process by which such complex diseases are produced could be the induction of peripheral immune responses to antigens expressed in astrocytes.     

A semi-quantitative direct contact assay using fluorescein diacetate and L929 mouse fibroblasts in monolayer culture

Summary A semi-quantitative procedure is described for measuring cell viability after short-term exposure to a test substance using a monolayer culture. Test substances are placed in direct contact with cell monolayers for various time intervals. The substances are removed and the monolayers are incubated in the presence of fluorescein diacetate. Monolayers are viewed under a fluorescent microscope and the percentage of fluorescing (viable) cells is estimated. The method is suitable for examining cytotoxic effects at short times of exposure and for discriminating between test substances that give similar, low toxicity endpoints in standard 24-h assays.     

An Interdisciplinary Clinical Advancement Program Within a Patient-Centered Care Model

Restructuring in health care does not have to compromise the pursuit of clinical excellence and quality patient care. The clinical advancement program (CAP) at the Hospital for Special Care is a newly developed multidisciplinary reward and recognition program for clinical staff. The program is integrated into the hospital's structure of service line management and, unlike traditional advancement programs, is open to all levels of care providers: professional personnel, technical staff, and aides. This article describes the basic features of the CAP model and how it was developed by a multidisciplinary task force.