Educomunicação e suas áreas de intervenção: Novos paradigmas para o diálogo intercultural

oai:omp.abpeducom.org.br:publicationFormat/1O material aqui divulgado representa, em essência, a contribuição do VII Encontro Brasileiro de Educomunicação ao V Global MIL Week, da UNESCO, ocorrido na ECA/USP, entre 3 e 5 de novembro de 2016. Estamos diante de um conjunto de 104 papers executivos, com uma média de entre 7 e 10 páginas, cada um. Com este rico e abundante material, chegamos ao sétimo e-book publicado pela ABPEducom, em seus seis primeiros anos de existência. A especificidade desta obra é a de trazer as “Áreas de Intervenção” do campo da Educomunicação, colocando-as a serviço de uma meta essencial ao agir educomunicativo: o diálogo intercultural, trabalhado na linha do tema geral do evento internacional: Media and Information Literacy: New Paradigms for Intercultural Dialogue

Influence of Implant Drill Materials on Wear, Deformation, and Roughness After Repeated Drilling and Sterilization

Purpose:The aim of this study was to evaluate deformation, roughness, and mass loss of stainless steel, diamond-like carbon (DLC)-coated and zirconia drills after multiple osteotomies with sterilization procedures.Materials and Methods:Drilling procedures were performed using stainless steel (G1), DLC-coated (G2), and zirconia (G3) drills. All groups were divided in subgroups 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5, corresponded to drills used 0, 10, 20, 30, and 40 times, respectively.Results:No significant differences in mass and roughness were detected among all groups and subgroups. In SEM images, all groups revealed signs of wear while coating delamination was detected in G2. Drills from G1 displayed more irregular surface, whereas cutting edges were more regular in G3.Conclusion:Zirconia drills presented more regular surfaces whereas stainless steel drills revealed more severe signs of wear. Further studies must be performed to evaluate the putative influence of these findings in heat generation

Comparative Evaluation of Bone Repair with Four Different Bone Substitutes in Critical Size Defects

This study evaluated the osteoconductive potential of four biomaterials used to fill bone defects. For this, 24 male Albino rabbits were submitted to the creation of a bilateral 8 mm calvarial bone defect. The animals were divided into four groups—bovine hydroxyapatite, Bio-Oss® (BIO); Lumina-Bone Porous® (LBP); Bonefill® (BFL); and an alloplastic material, Clonos® (CLN)—and were euthanized at 14 and 40 days. The samples were subjected to histological and histometric analysis for newly formed bone area. Immunohistochemical analysis for Runt-related transcription factor 2 (Runx2), vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF), and osteocalcin (OC) was performed. After statistical analysis, the CLN group showed greater new bone formation (NB) in both periods analyzed (p<0.05). At 14 days, the NB showed greater values in BIO in relation to LBP and BFL groups; however, after 40 days, the LBP group surpassed the results of BIO (p<0.001). The immunostaining showed a decrease in Runx2 intensity in BIO after 40 days, while it increased for LBP (p<0.05). The CLN showed increased OC compared to the other groups in both periods analyzed (p<0.05). Therefore, CLN showed the best osteoconductive behavior in critical defects in rabbit calvaria, and BFL showed the lowest osteoconductive property

Initial invasive or conservative strategy for stable coronary disease

BACKGROUND Among patients with stable coronary disease and moderate or severe ischemia, whether clinical outcomes are better in those who receive an invasive intervention plus medical therapy than in those who receive medical therapy alone is uncertain. METHODS We randomly assigned 5179 patients with moderate or severe ischemia to an initial invasive strategy (angiography and revascularization when feasible) and medical therapy or to an initial conservative strategy of medical therapy alone and angiography if medical therapy failed. The primary outcome was a composite of death from cardiovascular causes, myocardial infarction, or hospitalization for unstable angina, heart failure, or resuscitated cardiac arrest. A key secondary outcome was death from cardiovascular causes or myocardial infarction. RESULTS Over a median of 3.2 years, 318 primary outcome events occurred in the invasive-strategy group and 352 occurred in the conservative-strategy group. At 6 months, the cumulative event rate was 5.3% in the invasive-strategy group and 3.4% in the conservative-strategy group (difference, 1.9 percentage points; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.8 to 3.0); at 5 years, the cumulative event rate was 16.4% and 18.2%, respectively (difference, 121.8 percentage points; 95% CI, 124.7 to 1.0). Results were similar with respect to the key secondary outcome. The incidence of the primary outcome was sensitive to the definition of myocardial infarction; a secondary analysis yielded more procedural myocardial infarctions of uncertain clinical importance. There were 145 deaths in the invasive-strategy group and 144 deaths in the conservative-strategy group (hazard ratio, 1.05; 95% CI, 0.83 to 1.32). CONCLUSIONS Among patients with stable coronary disease and moderate or severe ischemia, we did not find evidence that an initial invasive strategy, as compared with an initial conservative strategy, reduced the risk of ischemic cardiovascular events or death from any cause over a median of 3.2 years. The trial findings were sensitive to the definition of myocardial infarction that was used

Health-status outcomes with invasive or conservative care in coronary disease

BACKGROUND In the ISCHEMIA trial, an invasive strategy with angiographic assessment and revascularization did not reduce clinical events among patients with stable ischemic heart disease and moderate or severe ischemia. A secondary objective of the trial was to assess angina-related health status among these patients. METHODS We assessed angina-related symptoms, function, and quality of life with the Seattle Angina Questionnaire (SAQ) at randomization, at months 1.5, 3, and 6, and every 6 months thereafter in participants who had been randomly assigned to an invasive treatment strategy (2295 participants) or a conservative strategy (2322). Mixed-effects cumulative probability models within a Bayesian framework were used to estimate differences between the treatment groups. The primary outcome of this health-status analysis was the SAQ summary score (scores range from 0 to 100, with higher scores indicating better health status). All analyses were performed in the overall population and according to baseline angina frequency. RESULTS At baseline, 35% of patients reported having no angina in the previous month. SAQ summary scores increased in both treatment groups, with increases at 3, 12, and 36 months that were 4.1 points (95% credible interval, 3.2 to 5.0), 4.2 points (95% credible interval, 3.3 to 5.1), and 2.9 points (95% credible interval, 2.2 to 3.7) higher with the invasive strategy than with the conservative strategy. Differences were larger among participants who had more frequent angina at baseline (8.5 vs. 0.1 points at 3 months and 5.3 vs. 1.2 points at 36 months among participants with daily or weekly angina as compared with no angina). CONCLUSIONS In the overall trial population with moderate or severe ischemia, which included 35% of participants without angina at baseline, patients randomly assigned to the invasive strategy had greater improvement in angina-related health status than those assigned to the conservative strategy. The modest mean differences favoring the invasive strategy in the overall group reflected minimal differences among asymptomatic patients and larger differences among patients who had had angina at baseline