OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to compare the treatment duration and dentoskeletal changes between two different anchorage systems used to treat maxillary dentoalveolar protrusion and to examine the effectiveness of en-masse retraction using two miniscrews placed in the midpalatal suture. METHODS: Fifty-seven patients (9 men, 48 women), who had undergone level anchorage system treatment at Aichi-Gakuin University Dental Hospital (Nagoya, Japan) were divided into two groups according to the method of maxillary posterior anchorage reinforcement: midpalatal miniscrews (25 patients, mean age 22 years) and conventional anchorage (32 patients, mean age 19 years). The en-masse retraction period, overall treatment duration, pre-treatment effective ANB angle, and change in the effective ANB angle were compared with an independent-samples t-test. RESULTS: Compared to the headgear group, the duration of en-masse retraction was longer by approximately 4 months in the miniscrew group (p < 0.001). However, we found no significant difference in the total treatment duration between the groups. Moreover, a greater change in the effective ANB angle was observed in patients treated with miniscrews than in those treated with the conventional method (p < 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: The level anchorage system treatment using miniscrews placed in the midpalatal area will allow orthodontists more time to control the anterior teeth during en-masse retraction, without increasing the total treatment duration. Furthermore, it achieves better dentoskeletal control than does the conventional anchorage method, thereby improving the quality of the treatment results.
Humans ; Male ; Sutures ; Tooth

Methods: This prospective, single-arm study included 11 patients (eight men; mean age, 62.7 years) with ≥3-months’ chronic pain history due to lumbar disease. Subcutaneous TCZ injections were administered twice, at a 2-week interval. We evaluated low back pain, leg pain, and leg numbness using numeric rating scales and the Oswestry Disability Index (ODI; baseline and 6 months postinjection); serum IL-6 and tumor necrosis factor-α levels (baseline and 1 month postinjection); and clinical adverse events. Results: Intractable symptoms reduced after TCZ administration. Low back pain improved for 6 months. Improvements in leg pain and numbness peaked at 4 and 1 month, respectively. Improvements in ODI were significant at 1 month and peaked at 4 months. Serum IL-6 was increased at 1 month. IL-6 responders (i.e., patients with IL-6 increases >10 pg/mL) showed particularly significant improvements in leg pain at 2 weeks, 1 month, and 2 months compared with nonresponders. We observed no apparent adverse events. Conclusions Systemic TCZ administration improved symptoms effectively for 6 months, with peak improvements at 1–4 months and no adverse events. Changing serum IL-6 levels correlated with leg pain improvements; further studies are warranted to elucidate the mechanistic connections between lumbar disorders and inflammatory cytokines.

Purpose: In this multicenter retrospective observational study, we examined the early effects of romosozumab in patients with severe osteoporosis in terms of time-course changes in bone metabolism marker, improvement in bone density, and adverse effects. Materials and Methods: Patients with severe osteoporosis were included. We investigated the progress of TRACP 5b and P1NP before and 1–2 months after the administration of romosozumab. We also investigated the bone density of lumbar spine, femoral neck, and the entire femur, measured by the DXA method, before and 5–7 months after the administration of romosozumab. Results: A total of 70 patients (7 males and 63 females, age 75.0±3.6 years) participated in this study. Significant improvements in TRACP 5b and P1NP levels were observed before and 1–2 months after romosozumab administration. The average bone density of lumbar spine, femoral neck, and the entire femur were measured before and 5–7 months after romosozumab administration;and a significant increase only observed in the lumbar spine. Conclusion Consistent with the findings of previous clinical studies, romosozumab has both bone formation-enhancing and bone resorption effects (dual effect). In addition, romosozumab also demonstrated improvement in bone density from the early phase after the administration, though the result was only seen in the lumbar spine.

Purpose: In this multicenter retrospective observational study, we examined the early effects of romosozumab in patients with severe osteoporosis in terms of time-course changes in bone metabolism marker, improvement in bone density, and adverse effects. Materials and Methods: Patients with severe osteoporosis were included. We investigated the progress of TRACP 5b and P1NP before and 1–2 months after the administration of romosozumab. We also investigated the bone density of lumbar spine, femoral neck, and the entire femur, measured by the DXA method, before and 5–7 months after the administration of romosozumab. Results: A total of 70 patients (7 males and 63 females, age 75.0±3.6 years) participated in this study. Significant improvements in TRACP 5b and P1NP levels were observed before and 1–2 months after romosozumab administration. The average bone density of lumbar spine, femoral neck, and the entire femur were measured before and 5–7 months after romosozumab administration;and a significant increase only observed in the lumbar spine. Conclusion Consistent with the findings of previous clinical studies, romosozumab has both bone formation-enhancing and bone resorption effects (dual effect). In addition, romosozumab also demonstrated improvement in bone density from the early phase after the administration, though the result was only seen in the lumbar spine.