- Browse by Subject
Browsing by Subject "Treatment time"
Now showing 1 - 2 of 2
Results Per Page
Sort Options
Item Clinical Outcomes of 0.018-Inch and 0.022-Inch Bracket Slot Using the ABO Objective Grading System(E.H Angle Education and Research Foundation, 2010-05-01) Detterline, David A.; Isikbay, Serkis C.; Brizendine, Edward J.; Kula, Katherine S.; Orthodontics and Oral Facial Genetics, School of DentistryObjective: To determine if there is a significant difference in the clinical outcomes of cases treated with 0.018-inch brackets vs 0.022-inch brackets according to the American Board of Orthodontics (ABO) Objective Grading System (OGS). Materials and Methods: Treatment time and the ABO-OGS standards in alignment/rotations, marginal ridges, buccolingual inclination, overjet, occlusal relationships, occlusal contacts, interproximal contacts, and root angulations were used to compare clinical outcomes between a series of 828 consecutively completed orthodontic cases (2005–2008) treated in a university graduate orthodontic clinic with 0.018-inch- and 0.022-inch-slot brackets. Results: A two-sample t-test showed a significantly shorter treatment time and lower ABO-OGS score in four categories (alignment/rotations, marginal ridges, overjet, and root angulations), as well as lower total ABO-OGS total score, with the 0.018-inch brackets. The ANCOVA—adjusting for covariants of discrepancy index, age, gender, and treatment time—showed that the 0.018-inch brackets scored significantly lower than the 0.022-inch brackets in both the alignment/rotations category and total ABO-OGS score. Conclusions: There were statistically, but not clinically, significant differences in treatment times and in total ABO-OGS scores in favor of 0.018-inch brackets as compared with the 0.022-inch brackets in a university graduate orthodontic clinic (2005–2008).Item Second Opinions in Breast Cancer Surgery: What Have We Learned?(Springer Nature, 2022-10-11) Beer, Meghan; Allison, Hannah; Fisher, Carla; Fan, Betty; Surgery, School of MedicineIntroduction: Second-opinion consultations (SOCs) provide many benefits. However, duplicate office visits and the logistics of transferring medical records may be concerning for delaying treatment. There is currently no clear understanding regarding the characteristics of patients with breast cancer who desire second surgical opinions or if this contributes to delays in care. Methods: A review of our institutional database from July 1, 2019, to December 31, 2019, identified breast cancer patients who were documented to be SOCs or primary consultations (PC). Neoadjuvant chemotherapy patients were excluded. Comparisons of patient characteristics, tumor characteristics, and surgery factors were performed using chi-square analysis. All analyses were two-tailed and statistical significance was assigned at p <0.05. This study was deemed IRB-exempt. Results: In our review, 158 breast cancer patients were identified, 21 (13.3%) SOCs and 137 (86.7%) PCs. Of the SOCs, 90% (19/21) underwent surgery at our institution. The study revealed an increased incidence of SOCs in those patients who ultimately underwent mastectomy (p=0.039) as well as those with lower pathologic T stage (p=0.021). There were no other differences in demographics, surgery, or tumor characteristics. No delay was seen in time for treatment. Conclusions: Patients who sought second opinions were more likely to undergo mastectomy and had lower pathologic tumor size. The time from biopsy to surgery appointment was longer in patients who sought second opinions but there were no differences in the time from biopsy or surgery appointment. It is encouraging that those who sought second opinions did not face any delay in care once established.