The taper of cast post preparation measured using innovative image processing technique

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>No documentation in the literature about taper of cast posts. This study was conducted to measure the degree of cast posts taper, and to evaluate its suitability based on the anatomy aspects of the common candidate teeth for post reconstruction.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>Working casts for cast posts, prepared using Gates Glidden drills, were collected. Impressions of post spaces were made using polyvinyl siloxan putty/wash technique. Digital camera with a 10' high quality lens was used for capturing two digital images for each impression; one in the Facio-Lingual (FL) and the other in the Mesio-Distal (MD) directions. Automated image processing program was developed to measure the degree of canal taper. Data were analyzed using Statistical Package for Social Sciences software and One way Analysis of Variance.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>Eighty four dies for cast posts were collected: 16 for each maxillary anterior teeth subgroup, and 18 for each maxillary and mandibular premolar subgroup. Mean of total taper for all preparations was 10.7 degree. There were no statistical differences among the total taper of all groups (P = .256) or between the MD and FL taper for each subgroup. Mean FL taper for the maxillary first premolars was lower significantly (P = .003) than the maxillary FL taper of the second premolars. FL taper was higher than the MD taper in all teeth except the maxillary first premolars.</p> <p>Conclusions</p> <p>Taper produced did not reflect the differences among the anatomy of teeth. While this technique deemed satisfactory in the maxillary anterior teeth, the same could not be said for the maxillary first premolars. Careful attention to the root anatomy is mandatory.</p

The management of an endodontically abscessed tooth: patient health state utility, decision-tree and economic analysis

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>A frequent encounter in clinical practice is the middle-aged adult patient complaining of a toothache caused by the spread of a carious infection into the tooth's endodontic complex. Decisions about the range of treatment options (conventional crown with a post and core technique (CC), a single tooth implant (STI), a conventional dental bridge (CDB), and a partial removable denture (RPD)) have to balance the prognosis, utility and cost. Little is know about the utility patients attach to the different treatment options for an endontically abscessed mandibular molar and maxillary incisor. We measured patients' dental-health-state utilities and ranking preferences of the treatment options for these dental problems.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>Forty school teachers ranked their preferences for conventional crown with a post and core technique, a single tooth implant, a conventional dental bridge, and a partial removable denture using a standard gamble and willingness to pay. Data previously reported on treatment prognosis and direct "out-of-pocket" costs were used in a decision-tree and economic analysis</p> <p>Results</p> <p>The Standard Gamble utilities for the restoration of a mandibular 1st molar with either the conventional crown (CC), single-tooth-implant (STI), conventional dental bridge (CDB) or removable-partial-denture (RPD) were 74.47 [± 6.91], 78.60 [± 5.19], 76.22 [± 5.78], 64.80 [± 8.1] respectively (p < 0.05). Their respective Willingness-to-Pay ($CDN) were 1,782.05 [± 361.42], 1,871.79 [± 349.44], 1,605.13 [± 348.10], 1,351.28 [± 368.62] (p < 0.05).</p> <p>The standard gamble utilities for the restoration of a maxillary central incisor with a CC, STI, CDB and RPD were 88.50 [± 6.12], 90.68 [± 3.41], 89.78 [± 3.81] and 91.10 [± 3.57] respectively (p > 0.05). Their respective willingness-to-pay ($CDN) were: 1,782.05 [± 361.42], 1,871.79 [± 349.44], 1,605.13 [± 348.10] and 1,351.28 [± 368.62]. A statistical difference was found between the utility of treating a maxillary central incisor and mandibular 1st-molar (p < 0.05).</p> <p>The expected-utility-value for a 5-year prosthetic survival was highest for the CDB and the STI treatment of an abscessed mandibular molar (74.75 and 71.47 respectively) and maxillary incisor (86.24 and 84.91 respectively). This held up to a sensitivity analysis when the success of root canal therapy and the risk of damage to the adjacent tooth were varied. The RPD for both the molar and incisor was the favored treatment based on a cost-utility (3.85 and 2.74 CND$per year of tooth saved respectively) and cost-benefit analysis (0.92 to 0.60 CND$ of cost per $ of benefit, respectively) for a prosthetic clinical survival of 5-years.</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>The position of the abscessed tooth and the amount of insurance coverage influences the utility and rank assigned by patients to the different treatment options. STI and CDB have optimal EUVs for a 5-year survival outcome, and RPD has significantly lower cost providing the better cost:benefit ratio.</p

Fundamental Prostodontik Cekat

xi, 580 Halaman.; 28 c

Superior Serum Concentrations with Posaconazole Delayed- Release Tablets Compared to Suspension Formulation in Hematological Malignancies

Posaconazole (PCZ), approved for prophylaxis against invasive fungal disease in high-risk patients, is commercially available orally as a suspension formulation (PCZ-susp) and as a delayed-release tablet (PCZ-tab). We evaluated the serum steady-state concentrations (Css) of PCZ stratified by the administered formulation for antifungal prophylaxis in patients with myeloid malignancies (n = 150). The primary outcome was the attainment rate of the target Css of ≥700 ng/ml. Secondary outcomes included toxicity assessment (hepatotoxicity and corrected QT [QTc] interval prolongation) and breakthrough fungal infections. Patients who received the PCZ-susp (n = 118) or PCZ-tab (n = 32) and had PCZ Css assessment after at least 7 days of therapy were eligible. The median Css in the PCZ-susp group was 390 ng/ml (range, 51 to 1,870 ng/ml; mean, 436 ng/ml) compared to 1,740 ng/ml (range, 662 to 3,350 ng/ml; mean, 1,781 ng/ml) in the PCZ-tab group (P \u3c 0.0001). The percentages of patients achieving the target goal of ≥700 ng/ml were 17% versus 97%, respectively (P \u3c 0.0001). Hepatotoxicity (grade 2 or higher) occurred in 1 patient in each group. QTc interval measurements were available for 32 patients in the PCZ-susp group and for 12 patients in the PCZ-tab group, and prolonged intervals of grade 2 or higher were noted in 9% (n = 3) and 17% (n = 2), respectively (P = 0.6). Breakthrough fungal infections in the PCZ-susp and PCZ-tab groups were 7% (n = 8) and 3% (n = 1), respectively (P = 0.68). We conclude that the use of PCZ-tab was associated with higher Css and with the probability of achieving therapeutic goals without worsening of adverse effects

Hematopoietic progenitor cell mobilization with just-in-time plerixafor approach is a cost-effective alternative to routine plerixafor use

Hematopoietic progenitor cell (HPC) mobilization with granulocyte-colony stimulating factor (G-CSF) and plerixafor results in superior CD34+ cell yield, when compared to mobilization with G-CSF alone in patients with myeloma and lymphoma. However, plerixafor-based approaches are associated with high costs. To circumvent this, several institutions use a so-called “just-in-time” plerixafor (JIT-P) approach, where plerixafor is only administered to patients likely to fail mobilization with G-CSF alone. Whether such a JIT-P approach is cost effective has not been confirmed to date. We present here, results of 136 patients with myeloma or lymphoma who underwent mobilization with two different approaches of plerixafor utilization. Between Jan 2010-Oct 2012 (n=76) patients uniformly received mobilization with G-CSF and plerixafor (routine G+P cohort). To reduce mobilization costs, between Nov 2012-Jun 2014 (n=60) patients were mobilized with JIT-P where plerixafor was only administered to patients likely to fail mobilization with G-CSF alone. Patients in routine G+P group had a higher median peak peripheral blood CD34+ cell count (62 vs. 29 cells/μL, p\u3c0.001) and a higher median day 1 CD34+ cell yield (2.9 × 106 CD34+ cells/kg vs. 2.1 × 106 CD34+ cells/kg, p=0.001). The median total CD34+ cell collection was also higher in routine G+P group (5.8 × 106 CD34+ cells/kg vs. 4.5 × 106 CD34+ cells/kg, p=0.007). In the JIT-P group 40% (n=24) completed adequate HPC collection without plerixafor. There was no difference in mobilization failure rates. The mean number of plerixafor doses utilized in JIT-P was lower (1.3 vs. 2.1, p=0.0002). The mean estimated cost in the routine G+P group was higher than that in the JIT-P group (USD 27,513 vs. USD 23,597, p=0.01). Our analysis demonstrates that mobilization with a JIT-P approach is a safe, effective and cost efficient strategy for HPC collection