OBJECTIVE The aims of this study were: to investigate the relationship between mandibular canine calcification stages and skeletal maturity; and to evaluate whether the mandibular canine calcification stages may be used as a reliable diagnostic tool for skeletal maturity assessment. MATERIALS AND METHODS This study included 151 subjects: 81 females and 70 males, with ages ranging from 9 to 16 years (mean age: 12.29±1.86 years). The inclusion criteria for subjects were as follows: age between 9 and 16 years; good general health without any hormonal, nutritional, growth or dental development problems. Subjects who were undergoing or had previously received orthodontic treatment were not included in this study. The calcification stages of the left permanent mandibular canine were assessed according to the method of Demirjian, on panoramic radiographs. Assessment of skeletal maturity was carried out using the cervical vertebral maturation index (CVMI), as proposed by the Hassel-Farman method, on lateral cephalograms. The correlation between the calcification stages of mandibular canine and skeletal maturity was estimated separately for male and female subjects. RESULTS Correlation coefficients between calcification stages of mandibular canine and skeletal maturity were 0.895 for male and 0.701 for female subjects. CONCLUSIONS A significant correlation was found between the calcification stages of the mandibular canine and skeletal maturity. The calcification stages of the mandibular canine show a satisfactory diagnostic performance only for assessment of pre-pubertal growth phase.

In the published paper [1], the following plant species are listed: Mentha longifolia var. lavanduliodora, Mentha spicata and Mentha spicata var. crispa.[...]

Introduction Imatinib mesylate (Glivec, Novartis) is the first tyrosine kinase inhibitor (TKI) targeting the BCR-ABL1 fusion protein responsible for the pathogenesis of chronic myeloid leukemia (CML). Low cost generic alternatives to imatinib are an integral part of cost effective healthcare strategies for developing countries. However, the use of generics has been associated with different clinical outcomes. In this study, we compared outcomes of two groups of patients who received Glivec as first-line therapy (Group 1) to patients who received generic imatinib as first-line therapy (Group 2) in Bosnia and Herzegovina. Material and methods This was a multicenter retrospective cohort study of BCR-ABL1 positive CML patients (n = 53) in the Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina between 1 June 2005 and 31 March 2016. Glivec was used from 01 June 2005 until 30 September 2013, when all patients had to switch to generics, which was mandated by the Federal Solidarity Fund that allocates targeted cancer therapies. The following generic imatinib was available: Anzovip (Zdravlje, Actavis) from 09/2013 to 09/2014, Meaxin (Krka) from 09/2014 to 12/2015, and Plivatinib (Pliva) from 12/2015. Patient data was collected from the database of the Federal Solidarity Fund, a subsidiary of the Federal Health Insurance Agency. Branded and generic imatinib was administered orally at dosage of 400 mg/day. Patients who were switched to nilotinib received orally 400 mg/day. Patients on Glivec included in this study started therapy from 0-6 months from time of diagnosis, while patients who started with generics did not wait for therapy. Patient variables that were collected included age, gender, town, date of diagnosis, date of start of therapy, monthly TKI dosage, adverse side effects, progression, lethal outcome, prognostic factors and diagnostic parameters, including cytogenetics and molecular testing. In September 2013, Glivec stopped being available in Bosnia and all CML patients were switched to generic therapy Anzovip. Median duration of each therapy is given in Table 1. Results We compared patients on Glivec as first-line therapy (Group 1, n=26) to patients on first-line generic imatinib (Group 2, n=27) with the follow-up period of at least three years for each group. When we compare Groups 1 and 2 using intention to treat analysis, Kaplan-Meier estimated rate of overall survival at 24 months of therapy was 88% vs. 68%, respectively (p=0.14), while 69% vs. 70% achieved CCyR (p=0.12), respectively. In Group 1, 27% (7/26) patients switched to nilotinib (treatment failure in 2 patients and side effects in 5 patients), 54% (14/26) patients switched to generics because Glivec was no longer available, and 19% (5/26) patients stopped therapy (2 patients stopped therapy and 3 patients died). Of the 7 patients who switched to nilotinib, 71% (5/7) achieved CCyR, 29% (2/7) achieved MMR and none died. Of 19 patients who stayed on imatinib, 68% (13/19) achieved CCyR, 63% (12/19) achieved MMR and 3/19 (16%) died. Of the 54% (14/26) patients who were switched from branded imatinib to generic imatinib, one patient (7%) lost complete cytogenetic response. Regarding Group 2, 52% (14/27) of patients switched to nilotinib due to treatment failure (n=8) and side effects (n=6), while 48% (13/27) of patients stayed on generics. Of patients who switched to nilotinib, 43% (6/14) achieved CCyR and 15% (2/14) achieved MMR. Of the patients who stayed on generic imatinib, 100% (13/13) achieved CCyR and 85% (11/13) achieved MMR. Conclusion Our results suggest that there was no obvious difference in the treatment efficacy between generic and branded imatinib. At 3 years, there was no significant difference in the overall suvival and achievement of CCyR between first-line Glivec and first-line generic imatinib (p=0.14, and p=0.12, respectively). * Median duration of therapy on generic imatinib Disclosures Radich:Bristol-MyersSquibb: Consultancy; Pfizer: Consultancy; ARIAD: Consultancy; TwinStrand: Consultancy; Novartis: Consultancy, Other: laboratory contract.

This paper describes the two-step method used to analyse the factors and aspects influencing human error during the maintenance of mining machines. The first step is the cause-effect analysis, supported by brainstorming, where five factors and 21 aspects are identified. During the second step, the group fuzzy analytic hierarchy process is used to rank the identified factors and aspects. A case study is done on mining companies in Serbia. The key aspects are ranked according to an analysis that included experts who assess risks in mining companies (a maintenance engineer, a technologist, an ergonomist, a psychologist, and an organisational scientist). Failure to follow technical maintenance instructions, poor organisation of the training process, inadequate diagnostic equipment, and a lack of understanding of the work process are identified as the most important causes of human error.