scholarly journals Treating children and adolescents with multiple traumas: a randomized clinical trial of narrative exposure therapy

2019 ◽  
Vol 10 (1) ◽  
pp. 1558708 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kirsi Peltonen ◽  
Samuli Kangaslampi
2014 ◽  
Vol 27 (3) ◽  
pp. 314-322 ◽  
Author(s):  
Alaa M. Hijazi ◽  
Mark A. Lumley ◽  
Maisa S. Ziadni ◽  
Luay Haddad ◽  
Lisa J. Rapport ◽  
...  

PLoS ONE ◽  
2018 ◽  
Vol 13 (11) ◽  
pp. e0206837 ◽  
Author(s):  
Katherine V. Houser ◽  
Galina V. Yamshchikov ◽  
Abbie R. Bellamy ◽  
Jeanine May ◽  
Mary E. Enama ◽  
...  

2020 ◽  
Vol 16 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Yvonne C. Anderson ◽  
Lisa E. Wynter ◽  
Niamh A. O'Sullivan ◽  
Cervantée E. K. Wild ◽  
Cameron C. Grant ◽  
...  

2019 ◽  
Vol 90 (2) ◽  
pp. 202-208 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ciara Campbell ◽  
Declan Millett ◽  
Niamh Kelly ◽  
Marie Cooke ◽  
Michael Cronin

ABSTRACT Objective: To compare Phase 1 treatment, using the Frankel 2 (FR2) or the modified Twin Block (MTB), for Class II division 1 malocclusion in children and adolescents with respect to: treatment duration, number of appliance breakages, occlusal outcome, and patient and parent perspectives. Materials and Methods: Sixty participants with a Class II division 1 malocclusion were randomly assigned to either the FR2 or MTB appliance in a two-armed parallel randomized clinical trial with an allocation ratio of 1 to 1. Time to achieve a Class I incisor relationship was the primary outcome. The number of appliance breakages was recorded. The Peer Assessment Rating (PAR) index was used to evaluate pre- and post-treatment occlusal outcome on study models. Participants completed the child OHRQoL (oral health-related quality of life), Piers-Harris, Standard Continuum of Aesthetic Need (SCAN), and Oral Aesthetic Subjective Impact Score (OASIS) questionnaires pre- and post-treatment; parents completed a SCAN questionnaire. Results: Forty-two participants completed treatment (FR2: 20; MTB: 22). Multiple imputation was used to impute missing data for noncompleters. Mean treatment duration was similar for the two appliances (FR2: 376 days [SD 101]; MTB: 340 days [SD 102]; P = .41). There were no significant differences in mean number of appliance breakages (FR2: 0.3 SD 0.7; MTB: 0.4 SD 0.8; P = .67 or mean PAR score P = .48). Patient and parent perspectives did not differ between appliances (P > .05). Conclusions: Phase 1 treatment duration, number of appliance breakages, occlusal outcome, and patient and parent perspectives were similar in 11–14 year olds with Class II division 1 malocclusion treated using the FR2 or MTB appliance.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document