METHODS: Electronic database search and hand search with no language limitations were conducted in the Cochrane Library, PubMed, Ovid, Web of Science, Scopus and ClinicalTrials.gov. The selection criteria were set to include studies with patients aged 13 years and above requiring extractions of upper and lower first premolars to treat bimaxillary proclination with high anchorage demand. Risk of bias assessment was undertaken with Cochrane's Risk Of Bias tool 2.0 (ROB 2.0) for randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and ROBINS‑I tool for nonrandomised prospective studies. The Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach was used for quality assessment. Results were summarised qualitatively; no meta-analysis was conducted.
RESULTS: Two RCTs and two nonrandomised prospective studies were included. According to the GRADE approach, there is low to very low quality of evidence that treatment using mini-implant anchorage may significantly change nasolabial angle, upper and lower lip procumbence, and facial convexity angle compared to treatment with conventional anchorage. Similarly, very low quality evidence exists showing no differences in treatment duration between treatments with skeletal or conventional anchorage.
CONCLUSIONS: The overall existing evidence regarding the effect of anchorage protocols on soft tissue changes in patients with bimaxillary protrusion and premolar extraction treatment plans is of low quality.
TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: PROSPERO CRD42020216684.
CASE PRESENTATION: Herein, we report a case of very severe hypertriglyceridemia 32 mmol/L (2834 mg/dL) detected incidentally at three months old in an otherwise well boy born late preterm with intrauterine growth restriction, when he presented with lipaemic plasma. He was later diagnosed with CLS. No pathogenic mutations were found for hypertriglyceridemia, and no secondary causes could explain his very severe hypertriglyceridemia.
CONCLUSIONS: The very severe hypertriglyceridemia in this case may appear to be a serious presentation of an unrecognised clinical feature of CLS, further expanding its phenotype.
METHODS: Two sets of 3-dimensional facial photographs (1 male and 1 female) each comprised 7 images that showed different dentoskeletal relations (ie, Class I, bimaxillary protrusion, bimaxillary retrusion, maxillary protrusion, maxillary retrusion, mandibular protrusion, and mandibular retrusion). The sets of photographs were shown to 101 laypersons (age, 28.87 ± 6.22 years) and 60 patients seeking orthognathic treatment (age, 27.12 ± 6.07 years). They rated their esthetic perceptions of the photographs on the basis of a 100 mm visual analog scale (VAS) from 0 (very unattractive) to 100 (very attractive).
RESULTS: The dentoskeletal Class I facial profile was ranked as the most attractive profile. Female orthognathic judges selected the retrusive maxilla while male orthognathic judges and male and female laypersons ranked the mandibular protrusion profile as the least attractive profile for both females and males. A bimaxillary protrusive female profile was viewed as more attractive by the orthognathic male (P = 0.006) and female (P = 0.006) judges, compared with female layperson judges. After adjustment for age, no statistically significant interaction between sex and judges (P >0.10) for all VAS scores were detected. For the female bimaxillary protrusive profile, orthognathic patient judges assigned a mean VAS score of 9.174 points higher than layperson judges (95% confidence interval, 3.11-15.24; P = 0.003).
CONCLUSION: Dentoskeletal Class I facial profile was generally considered the most attractive profile in both sexes; male and female orthognathic patients preferred a bimaxillary protrusive female profile. A concave facial profile was perceived as least attractive in both sexes.
METHODS: Four skin biophysical parameters - transepidermal water loss (TEWL), melanin content, elasticity, and collagen intensity - were assessed on the cheek of the subjects (20-60 years). Demographic background, daily habits, and skincare product use were gauged through a survey. Only 197 from the 213 subjects recruited initially were used for analysis after the data were screened for normality.
RESULTS: The biophysical parameters were similar in different races, except a higher melanin content in Indian female individuals. Elasticity and collagen intensity reduced with age, while melanin content increased in the older age-groups. But no difference was observed in TEWL at different ages. Evaluating the influence of daily habits, we observed that exercise significantly lowered TEWL and increased melanin content, which may be associated with UV radiation exposure. Facial skincare products are popular among the female subjects (>85% users). Products with moisturizing, sunscreening, and other skincare functions (astringent, antiaging, and anti-wrinkle) were preferred by subjects of all ages. These product functions significantly improve skin elasticity and reduce melanin content in the young adults. While aged women recognized the importance of having an additional skin-lightening function in their skincare routine. Although the influence of individual skincare function on skin biophysical parameters was mostly positive, the alteration of these parameters varied at different ages.
CONCLUSION: This is the first report of facial skin biophysical profile of Malaysian women. There is no difference among 3 major races saved for melanin content. This work demonstrated age-dependent influences on the biophysical parameters, except TEWL. The significance of skincare product use is well reflected in the improvement of these parameters at different age-groups based on individual skincare functions.