Percentage of patients shifting to another treatment modality: An experience-guided decision.

OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to assess the frequency with which orthodontic patients decided to shift to another type of orthodontic appliance, among conventional metal brackets, ceramic brackets, lingual brackets and clear aligner, based on their personal experiences of pain, ulcers, bad breath, hygiene issues and social difficulties. MATERIAL AND METHODS: This study comprises of patients seeking orthodontic treatment. The sample (n = 500; age group = 19-25 years) was divided equally into four groups based on the treatment modality: conventional metal brackets, ceramic brackets, lingual brackets and clear aligner. Patients rated the questionnaire using a visual analogue scale, to assess variables (such as pain, ulcer etc) that impact various treatment modalities. Subsequently, patients from all groups provided feedback regarding their treatment experiences, and expressed their preference for an alternative modality. Intergroup comparison among the four groups was done using one-way analysis of variance with Tukey's HSD post-hoc test (p ≤ 0.05). RESULTS: Patients who received lingual brackets reported higher levels of pain and ulceration, as compared to those who received clear aligners. All four groups showed statistically significant differences for ulcers during treatment (p ≤ 0.05). Of the 125 patients who received conventional metal brackets, 28% expressed a preference for clear aligner therapy, while 20% preferred ceramic brackets. In the lingual group, 56% of 125 patients preferred clear aligner therapy, and 8% preferred ceramic brackets to complete their treatment. In the ceramic group, 83% did not want to switch, whereas 17% desired to switch to clear aligner, while in aligner group no patient desired to switch. CONCLUSIONS: A higher percentage of patients from lingual brackets group chose to shift to clear aligners, followed by conventional metal brackets group and by ceramic brackets group, in this descending order. The clear aligner group demonstrated fewer issues than the other treatment modalities.

Percentage of patients shifting to another treatment modality: An experience-guided decision

ABSTRACT Objective: This study aimed to assess the frequency with which orthodontic patients decided to shift to another type of orthodontic appliance, among conventional metal brackets, ceramic brackets, lingual brackets and clear aligner, based on their personal experiences of pain, ulcers, bad breath, hygiene issues and social difficulties. Material and Methods: This study comprises of patients seeking orthodontic treatment. The sample (n = 500; age group = 19-25 years) was divided equally into four groups based on the treatment modality: conventional metal brackets, ceramic brackets, lingual brackets and clear aligner. Patients rated the questionnaire using a visual analogue scale, to assess variables (such as pain, ulcer etc) that impact various treatment modalities. Subsequently, patients from all groups provided feedback regarding their treatment experiences, and expressed their preference for an alternative modality. Intergroup comparison among the four groups was done using one-way analysis of variance with Tukey's HSD post-hoc test (p ≤ 0.05). Results: Patients who received lingual brackets reported higher levels of pain and ulceration, as compared to those who received clear aligners. All four groups showed statistically significant differences for ulcers during treatment (p ≤ 0.05). Of the 125 patients who received conventional metal brackets, 28% expressed a preference for clear aligner therapy, while 20% preferred ceramic brackets. In the lingual group, 56% of 125 patients preferred clear aligner therapy, and 8% preferred ceramic brackets to complete their treatment. In the ceramic group, 83% did not want to switch, whereas 17% desired to switch to clear aligner, while in aligner group no patient desired to switch. Conclusions: A higher percentage of patients from lingual brackets group chose to shift to clear aligners, followed by conventional metal brackets group and by ceramic brackets group, in this descending order. The clear aligner group demonstrated fewer issues than the other treatment modalities.

RESUMO Objetivo: Este estudo teve como objetivo avaliar a frequência com que pacientes ortodônticos decidiram mudar para outro tipo de aparelho ortodôntico, entre braquetes convencionais de metal, braquetes cerâmicos, braquetes linguais e alinhadores transparentes, com base em suas experiências pessoais de dor, aftas, mau hálito, problemas de higiene e dificuldades sociais. Material e Métodos: Esse estudo foi composto por pacientes que procuram tratamento ortodôntico. A amostra (n = 500; faixa etária = 19-25 anos) foi dividida igualmente em quatro grupos, com base na modalidade de tratamento: braquetes metálicos convencionais, braquetes cerâmicos, braquetes linguais e alinhadores transparentes. Os pacientes responderam a um questionário, usando uma escala visual analógica, para avaliar variáveis como dor e aftas, que impactam diferentes modalidades de tratamento. Posteriormente, os pacientes de todos os grupos forneceram feedback sobre suas experiências de tratamento e expressaram sua preferência por uma modalidade alternativa. A comparação intergrupos entre os quatro grupos foi feita usando análise de variância unidirecional com teste post-hoc HSD de Tukey (p ≤ 0,05). Resultados: Os pacientes que usaram braquetes linguais relataram níveis mais elevados de dor e aftas, em comparação com aqueles que usaram alinhadores transparentes. Todos os quatro grupos apresentaram diferenças estatisticamente significativas para aftas durante o tratamento (p ≤ 0,05). Dos 125 pacientes que usaram braquetes metálicos convencionais, 28% expressaram preferência pelo tratamento com alinhadores transparentes, enquanto 20% preferiram braquetes cerâmicos. No grupo com braquetes linguais, 56% dos 125 pacientes preferiram o tratamento com alinhadores transparentes e 8% preferiram braquetes cerâmicos para completar o tratamento. No grupo com braquetes cerâmicos, 83% não queriam trocar de tratamento, enquanto 17% desejavam mudar para os alinhadores transparentes; enquanto no grupo de alinhadores nenhum paciente desejou mudar. Conclusões: Uma porcentagem maior de pacientes do grupo com braquetes linguais optou pela mudança para alinhadores transparentes, seguido pelo grupo com braquetes metálicos convencionais e pelo grupo com braquetes cerâmicos, em ordem decrescente. O grupo de alinhadores transparentes demonstrou menos problemas do que as outras modalidades de tratamento.

Antibody-drug conjugates in cancer therapy: innovations, challenges, and future directions.

The emergence of antibody-drug conjugates (ADCs) as a potential therapeutic avenue in cancer treatment has garnered significant attention. By combining the selective specificity of monoclonal antibodies with the cytotoxicity of drug molecules, ADCs aim to increase the therapeutic index, selectively targeting cancer cells while minimizing systemic toxicity. Various ADCs have been licensed for clinical usage, with ongoing research paving the way for additional options. However, the manufacture of ADCs faces several challenges. These include identifying suitable target antigens, enhancing antibodies, linkers, and payloads, and managing resistance mechanisms and side effects. This review focuses on the strategies to overcome these hurdles, such as site-specific conjugation techniques, novel antibody formats, and combination therapy. Our focus lies on current advancements in antibody engineering, linker technology, and cytotoxic payloads while addressing the challenges associated with ADC development. Furthermore, we explore the future potential of personalized medicine, leveraging individual patients' molecular profiles, to propel ADC treatments forward. As our understanding of the molecular mechanisms driving cancer progression continues to expand, we anticipate the development of new ADCs that offer more effective and personalized therapeutic options for cancer patients.