Objective: Miniscrews are commonly utilized as temporary anchorage devices (TADs) in cases of maxillary protrusion and premolar extraction. This study aimed to investigate the effects and potential side effects of two conventional miniscrew configurations on the maxillary incisors. Methods: Eighty-two adult patients with maxillary dentoalveolar protrusion who had undergone bilateral first premolar extraction were retrospectively divided into three groups: non-TAD, two posterior miniscrews only (P-TADs), and two anterior and two posterior miniscrews combined (AP-TADs). Cone-beam computed tomography was used to evaluate the maxillary central incisors (U1). Results: The APTADs group had significantly greater U1 intrusion (1.99 ± 2.37 mm, n = 50) and less retroclination (1.70° ± 8.80°) compared to the P-TADs (–0.07 ± 1.65 mm and 9.45° ± 10.68°, n = 60) and non-TAD group (0.30 ± 1.61 mm and 1.91° ± 9.39°, n = 54).However, the AP-TADs group suffered from significantly greater apical root resorption (ARR) of U1 (2.69 ± 1.38 mm) than the P-TADs (1.63 ± 1.46 mm) and non-TAD group (0.89 ± 0.97 mm). Notably, the incidence of grade IV ARR was 16.6% in the AP-TADs group, significantly higher than the rates observed in the P-TADs (6.7%) and non-TAD (1.9%) groups. Multiple regression analysis revealed that after excluding tooth movement factors, the AP-TADs configuration resulted in an additional 0.5 mm of ARR compared with the P-TADs group. Conclusions In cases of maxillary protrusion and premolar extraction, the use of combined anterior and posterior miniscrews enhances incisor intrusion and minimizes torque loss of the maxillary incisors. However, this approach results in more severe ARR, likely due to the increased apical movement and composite force exerted.

Purpose: Biomarkers predicting clinically significant prostate cancer (sPC) before biopsy are currently lacking. This study aimed to develop a non-invasive urine test to predict sPC in at-risk men using urinary metabolomic profiles. Materials and Methods: Urine samples from 934 at-risk subjects and 268 treatment-naïve PC patients were subjected to liquid chromatography/mass spectrophotometry (LC-MS)-based metabolomics profiling using both C18 and hydrophilic interaction liquid chromatography (HILIC) column analyses. Four models were constructed (training cohort [n=647]) and validated (validation cohort [n=344]) for different purposes. Model I differentiates PC from benign cases. Models II, III, and a Gleason score model (model GS) predict sPC that is defined as National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN)-categorized favorable-intermediate risk group or higher (Model II), unfavorable-intermediate risk group or higher (Model III), and GS ≥7 PC (model GS), respectively. The metabolomic panels and predicting models were constructed using logistic regression and Akaike information criterion. Results: The best metabolomic panels from the HILIC column include 25, 27, 28 and 26 metabolites in Models I, II, III, and GS, respectively, with area under the curve (AUC) values ranging between 0.82 and 0.91 in the training cohort and between 0.77 and 0.86 in the validation cohort. The combination of the metabolomic panels and five baseline clinical factors that include serum prostate-specific antigen, age, family history of PC, previously negative biopsy, and abnormal digital rectal examination results significantly increased AUCs (range 0.88–0.91). At 90% sensitivity (validation cohort), 33%, 34%, 41%, and 36% of unnecessary biopsies were avoided in Models I, II, III, and GS, respectively. The above results were successfully validated using LC-MS with the C18 column. Conclusions Urinary metabolomic profiles with baseline clinical factors may accurately predict sPC in men with elevated risk before biopsy.

Objective: Miniscrews are commonly utilized as temporary anchorage devices (TADs) in cases of maxillary protrusion and premolar extraction. This study aimed to investigate the effects and potential side effects of two conventional miniscrew configurations on the maxillary incisors. Methods: Eighty-two adult patients with maxillary dentoalveolar protrusion who had undergone bilateral first premolar extraction were retrospectively divided into three groups: non-TAD, two posterior miniscrews only (P-TADs), and two anterior and two posterior miniscrews combined (AP-TADs). Cone-beam computed tomography was used to evaluate the maxillary central incisors (U1). Results: The APTADs group had significantly greater U1 intrusion (1.99 ± 2.37 mm, n = 50) and less retroclination (1.70° ± 8.80°) compared to the P-TADs (–0.07 ± 1.65 mm and 9.45° ± 10.68°, n = 60) and non-TAD group (0.30 ± 1.61 mm and 1.91° ± 9.39°, n = 54).However, the AP-TADs group suffered from significantly greater apical root resorption (ARR) of U1 (2.69 ± 1.38 mm) than the P-TADs (1.63 ± 1.46 mm) and non-TAD group (0.89 ± 0.97 mm). Notably, the incidence of grade IV ARR was 16.6% in the AP-TADs group, significantly higher than the rates observed in the P-TADs (6.7%) and non-TAD (1.9%) groups. Multiple regression analysis revealed that after excluding tooth movement factors, the AP-TADs configuration resulted in an additional 0.5 mm of ARR compared with the P-TADs group. Conclusions In cases of maxillary protrusion and premolar extraction, the use of combined anterior and posterior miniscrews enhances incisor intrusion and minimizes torque loss of the maxillary incisors. However, this approach results in more severe ARR, likely due to the increased apical movement and composite force exerted.

Purpose: Biomarkers predicting clinically significant prostate cancer (sPC) before biopsy are currently lacking. This study aimed to develop a non-invasive urine test to predict sPC in at-risk men using urinary metabolomic profiles. Materials and Methods: Urine samples from 934 at-risk subjects and 268 treatment-naïve PC patients were subjected to liquid chromatography/mass spectrophotometry (LC-MS)-based metabolomics profiling using both C18 and hydrophilic interaction liquid chromatography (HILIC) column analyses. Four models were constructed (training cohort [n=647]) and validated (validation cohort [n=344]) for different purposes. Model I differentiates PC from benign cases. Models II, III, and a Gleason score model (model GS) predict sPC that is defined as National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN)-categorized favorable-intermediate risk group or higher (Model II), unfavorable-intermediate risk group or higher (Model III), and GS ≥7 PC (model GS), respectively. The metabolomic panels and predicting models were constructed using logistic regression and Akaike information criterion. Results: The best metabolomic panels from the HILIC column include 25, 27, 28 and 26 metabolites in Models I, II, III, and GS, respectively, with area under the curve (AUC) values ranging between 0.82 and 0.91 in the training cohort and between 0.77 and 0.86 in the validation cohort. The combination of the metabolomic panels and five baseline clinical factors that include serum prostate-specific antigen, age, family history of PC, previously negative biopsy, and abnormal digital rectal examination results significantly increased AUCs (range 0.88–0.91). At 90% sensitivity (validation cohort), 33%, 34%, 41%, and 36% of unnecessary biopsies were avoided in Models I, II, III, and GS, respectively. The above results were successfully validated using LC-MS with the C18 column. Conclusions Urinary metabolomic profiles with baseline clinical factors may accurately predict sPC in men with elevated risk before biopsy.

Objective: Miniscrews are commonly utilized as temporary anchorage devices (TADs) in cases of maxillary protrusion and premolar extraction. This study aimed to investigate the effects and potential side effects of two conventional miniscrew configurations on the maxillary incisors. Methods: Eighty-two adult patients with maxillary dentoalveolar protrusion who had undergone bilateral first premolar extraction were retrospectively divided into three groups: non-TAD, two posterior miniscrews only (P-TADs), and two anterior and two posterior miniscrews combined (AP-TADs). Cone-beam computed tomography was used to evaluate the maxillary central incisors (U1). Results: The APTADs group had significantly greater U1 intrusion (1.99 ± 2.37 mm, n = 50) and less retroclination (1.70° ± 8.80°) compared to the P-TADs (–0.07 ± 1.65 mm and 9.45° ± 10.68°, n = 60) and non-TAD group (0.30 ± 1.61 mm and 1.91° ± 9.39°, n = 54).However, the AP-TADs group suffered from significantly greater apical root resorption (ARR) of U1 (2.69 ± 1.38 mm) than the P-TADs (1.63 ± 1.46 mm) and non-TAD group (0.89 ± 0.97 mm). Notably, the incidence of grade IV ARR was 16.6% in the AP-TADs group, significantly higher than the rates observed in the P-TADs (6.7%) and non-TAD (1.9%) groups. Multiple regression analysis revealed that after excluding tooth movement factors, the AP-TADs configuration resulted in an additional 0.5 mm of ARR compared with the P-TADs group. Conclusions In cases of maxillary protrusion and premolar extraction, the use of combined anterior and posterior miniscrews enhances incisor intrusion and minimizes torque loss of the maxillary incisors. However, this approach results in more severe ARR, likely due to the increased apical movement and composite force exerted.

Purpose: Biomarkers predicting clinically significant prostate cancer (sPC) before biopsy are currently lacking. This study aimed to develop a non-invasive urine test to predict sPC in at-risk men using urinary metabolomic profiles. Materials and Methods: Urine samples from 934 at-risk subjects and 268 treatment-naïve PC patients were subjected to liquid chromatography/mass spectrophotometry (LC-MS)-based metabolomics profiling using both C18 and hydrophilic interaction liquid chromatography (HILIC) column analyses. Four models were constructed (training cohort [n=647]) and validated (validation cohort [n=344]) for different purposes. Model I differentiates PC from benign cases. Models II, III, and a Gleason score model (model GS) predict sPC that is defined as National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN)-categorized favorable-intermediate risk group or higher (Model II), unfavorable-intermediate risk group or higher (Model III), and GS ≥7 PC (model GS), respectively. The metabolomic panels and predicting models were constructed using logistic regression and Akaike information criterion. Results: The best metabolomic panels from the HILIC column include 25, 27, 28 and 26 metabolites in Models I, II, III, and GS, respectively, with area under the curve (AUC) values ranging between 0.82 and 0.91 in the training cohort and between 0.77 and 0.86 in the validation cohort. The combination of the metabolomic panels and five baseline clinical factors that include serum prostate-specific antigen, age, family history of PC, previously negative biopsy, and abnormal digital rectal examination results significantly increased AUCs (range 0.88–0.91). At 90% sensitivity (validation cohort), 33%, 34%, 41%, and 36% of unnecessary biopsies were avoided in Models I, II, III, and GS, respectively. The above results were successfully validated using LC-MS with the C18 column. Conclusions Urinary metabolomic profiles with baseline clinical factors may accurately predict sPC in men with elevated risk before biopsy.

Objective: Miniscrews are commonly utilized as temporary anchorage devices (TADs) in cases of maxillary protrusion and premolar extraction. This study aimed to investigate the effects and potential side effects of two conventional miniscrew configurations on the maxillary incisors. Methods: Eighty-two adult patients with maxillary dentoalveolar protrusion who had undergone bilateral first premolar extraction were retrospectively divided into three groups: non-TAD, two posterior miniscrews only (P-TADs), and two anterior and two posterior miniscrews combined (AP-TADs). Cone-beam computed tomography was used to evaluate the maxillary central incisors (U1). Results: The APTADs group had significantly greater U1 intrusion (1.99 ± 2.37 mm, n = 50) and less retroclination (1.70° ± 8.80°) compared to the P-TADs (–0.07 ± 1.65 mm and 9.45° ± 10.68°, n = 60) and non-TAD group (0.30 ± 1.61 mm and 1.91° ± 9.39°, n = 54).However, the AP-TADs group suffered from significantly greater apical root resorption (ARR) of U1 (2.69 ± 1.38 mm) than the P-TADs (1.63 ± 1.46 mm) and non-TAD group (0.89 ± 0.97 mm). Notably, the incidence of grade IV ARR was 16.6% in the AP-TADs group, significantly higher than the rates observed in the P-TADs (6.7%) and non-TAD (1.9%) groups. Multiple regression analysis revealed that after excluding tooth movement factors, the AP-TADs configuration resulted in an additional 0.5 mm of ARR compared with the P-TADs group. Conclusions In cases of maxillary protrusion and premolar extraction, the use of combined anterior and posterior miniscrews enhances incisor intrusion and minimizes torque loss of the maxillary incisors. However, this approach results in more severe ARR, likely due to the increased apical movement and composite force exerted.

Purpose: Biomarkers predicting clinically significant prostate cancer (sPC) before biopsy are currently lacking. This study aimed to develop a non-invasive urine test to predict sPC in at-risk men using urinary metabolomic profiles. Materials and Methods: Urine samples from 934 at-risk subjects and 268 treatment-naïve PC patients were subjected to liquid chromatography/mass spectrophotometry (LC-MS)-based metabolomics profiling using both C18 and hydrophilic interaction liquid chromatography (HILIC) column analyses. Four models were constructed (training cohort [n=647]) and validated (validation cohort [n=344]) for different purposes. Model I differentiates PC from benign cases. Models II, III, and a Gleason score model (model GS) predict sPC that is defined as National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN)-categorized favorable-intermediate risk group or higher (Model II), unfavorable-intermediate risk group or higher (Model III), and GS ≥7 PC (model GS), respectively. The metabolomic panels and predicting models were constructed using logistic regression and Akaike information criterion. Results: The best metabolomic panels from the HILIC column include 25, 27, 28 and 26 metabolites in Models I, II, III, and GS, respectively, with area under the curve (AUC) values ranging between 0.82 and 0.91 in the training cohort and between 0.77 and 0.86 in the validation cohort. The combination of the metabolomic panels and five baseline clinical factors that include serum prostate-specific antigen, age, family history of PC, previously negative biopsy, and abnormal digital rectal examination results significantly increased AUCs (range 0.88–0.91). At 90% sensitivity (validation cohort), 33%, 34%, 41%, and 36% of unnecessary biopsies were avoided in Models I, II, III, and GS, respectively. The above results were successfully validated using LC-MS with the C18 column. Conclusions Urinary metabolomic profiles with baseline clinical factors may accurately predict sPC in men with elevated risk before biopsy.

Objective: Miniscrews are commonly utilized as temporary anchorage devices (TADs) in cases of maxillary protrusion and premolar extraction. This study aimed to investigate the effects and potential side effects of two conventional miniscrew configurations on the maxillary incisors. Methods: Eighty-two adult patients with maxillary dentoalveolar protrusion who had undergone bilateral first premolar extraction were retrospectively divided into three groups: non-TAD, two posterior miniscrews only (P-TADs), and two anterior and two posterior miniscrews combined (AP-TADs). Cone-beam computed tomography was used to evaluate the maxillary central incisors (U1). Results: The APTADs group had significantly greater U1 intrusion (1.99 ± 2.37 mm, n = 50) and less retroclination (1.70° ± 8.80°) compared to the P-TADs (–0.07 ± 1.65 mm and 9.45° ± 10.68°, n = 60) and non-TAD group (0.30 ± 1.61 mm and 1.91° ± 9.39°, n = 54).However, the AP-TADs group suffered from significantly greater apical root resorption (ARR) of U1 (2.69 ± 1.38 mm) than the P-TADs (1.63 ± 1.46 mm) and non-TAD group (0.89 ± 0.97 mm). Notably, the incidence of grade IV ARR was 16.6% in the AP-TADs group, significantly higher than the rates observed in the P-TADs (6.7%) and non-TAD (1.9%) groups. Multiple regression analysis revealed that after excluding tooth movement factors, the AP-TADs configuration resulted in an additional 0.5 mm of ARR compared with the P-TADs group. Conclusions In cases of maxillary protrusion and premolar extraction, the use of combined anterior and posterior miniscrews enhances incisor intrusion and minimizes torque loss of the maxillary incisors. However, this approach results in more severe ARR, likely due to the increased apical movement and composite force exerted.

Purpose: Biomarkers predicting clinically significant prostate cancer (sPC) before biopsy are currently lacking. This study aimed to develop a non-invasive urine test to predict sPC in at-risk men using urinary metabolomic profiles. Materials and Methods: Urine samples from 934 at-risk subjects and 268 treatment-naïve PC patients were subjected to liquid chromatography/mass spectrophotometry (LC-MS)-based metabolomics profiling using both C18 and hydrophilic interaction liquid chromatography (HILIC) column analyses. Four models were constructed (training cohort [n=647]) and validated (validation cohort [n=344]) for different purposes. Model I differentiates PC from benign cases. Models II, III, and a Gleason score model (model GS) predict sPC that is defined as National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN)-categorized favorable-intermediate risk group or higher (Model II), unfavorable-intermediate risk group or higher (Model III), and GS ≥7 PC (model GS), respectively. The metabolomic panels and predicting models were constructed using logistic regression and Akaike information criterion. Results: The best metabolomic panels from the HILIC column include 25, 27, 28 and 26 metabolites in Models I, II, III, and GS, respectively, with area under the curve (AUC) values ranging between 0.82 and 0.91 in the training cohort and between 0.77 and 0.86 in the validation cohort. The combination of the metabolomic panels and five baseline clinical factors that include serum prostate-specific antigen, age, family history of PC, previously negative biopsy, and abnormal digital rectal examination results significantly increased AUCs (range 0.88–0.91). At 90% sensitivity (validation cohort), 33%, 34%, 41%, and 36% of unnecessary biopsies were avoided in Models I, II, III, and GS, respectively. The above results were successfully validated using LC-MS with the C18 column. Conclusions Urinary metabolomic profiles with baseline clinical factors may accurately predict sPC in men with elevated risk before biopsy.