Attitude of the canine in secondary bone-grafted and nongrafted patients with cleft lip and palate.

OBJECTIVE: To investigate the eruption pattern of the cleft-side canine regarding its pre-eruption position relative to the cleft in bone-grafted (BG) and nongrafted (NonBG) patients with cleft lip and palate. METHODS: Fifty-three patients with cleft lip and palate (21 BG, 32 NonBG) were examined by panoramic radiography and posteroanterior cephalography taken before and after canine eruption. Subjects were categorized into BG, NonBG, and control groups. Canines at the pre-eruption stage were categorized as close to (group 1) or distant from (group 2) the cleft area. The canine angle and its change between the two stages were evaluated. RESULTS: No significant differences were noted between the initial canine angle of the BG and NonBG groups. Although canines in the BG group erupted without a significant change in angle, the canine angle increased significantly (p < .0001) in the NonBG and control groups. In group 1, a greater change in canine angle was noted in the NonBG (p < .05) and control (p < .01) groups than in the BG group. In group 2, no significant difference was noted among the three groups. CONCLUSIONS: In BG patients, a canine located near the cleft appears to erupt at the same angle as it had before grafting. However, in NonBG patients, it erupts more vertically, guided by cortical bone. For canines distant from the cleft area, there is no significant difference in the change in angulation between NonBG and BG patients.     

Case report of de novo dup(18p)/del(18q) and r(18) mosaicism

This is a report of a 27-year-old woman with an unusual de novo chromosomal abnormality. Mosaicism was identified in peripheral blood cells examined by standard G-bands by trypsin using Giemsa (GTG) analysis and fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH) analysis with chromosome-18 region-specific probes, 46,XX,del(18)(pter → q21.33:)[41], 46,XX,r(18)(::p11.21 → q21.33::)[8], and 46,XX,der(18)(pter → q21.33::p11.21 → pter)[1]. On the other hand, the karyotype of periodontal ligament fibroblasts was nonmosaic, 46,XX, der(18)(pter → q21.33::p11.21 → pter)[50]. All cell lines appeared to be missing a portion of 18q (q21.33 → qter). The pattern of the dup(18p)/del(18q) in the rod configuration raises the possibility of an inversion in chromosome 18 in one of the parents. However, no chromosomal anomaly was detected in either parent. The most probable explanation is that de novo rod and ring configurations arose simultaneously from an intrachromosomal exchange. The unique phenotype of this patient, which included primary hypothyroidism and primary hypogonadism, is discussed in relation to her karyotype.     

Children's post-burn scars in Mongolia

This study aimed to identify some risk factors for post-burn scarring in children aged 0–18 years. One hundred and eighty two participants were involved in this cohort study. Under the age of 18 who were admitted to the Department of Burn Reconstructive Surgery with a diagnosis of upper and lower extremity burns were followed for 6 months. A total of 182 participants (62.1% male, and 37.9% female participants) enrolled in this study. Age ranged from 1 to 17 and the average age was 3.95 ± 3.35. The degree of burn and the anatomical location of the burn had a statistically significant effect on the development of hypertrophic scars. The length of the patient's hospitalisation days and the area of ​​the burn were statistically correlated with wound healing (P = 000, P = .074). For example, the average length of hospitalisation days was 8 ± 5 days in the hypertrophic scars group of patients, and in the group with normal scars, average bed days were 6 ± 3 days (P = .000). Grade IIIb burns increased the risk of hypertrophic scar development by 4.9 times and grade IV burns increased it by 2.5 times. In addition, when the area of burns was 11% or more, the risk of hypertrophic scar development was increased by 58.8%. In the case of wound swab infection, the risk of hypertrophic scar development was 12.4% higher (B = 1.124, 95 EI = 0.55; 2.28, P = .748). Participants' age, burn area and degree of burn are statistically significant risk factors for post-burn scarring in children aged 0–18 years.