Retention systems for extraoral maxillofacial prosthetic implants: a critical review

We describe the techniques available for retention of implant-supported prostheses: bar-clips, O-rings, and magnets. We present reported preferences and, although this is limited by the heterogeneity of methods used and patients studied, we hope we have identified the best retention systems for maxillofacial prosthetic implants. If practitioners know the advantages and disadvantages of each system, they can choose the most natural and comfortable prosthesis. We searched the PubMed and Scopus databases, and restricted our search to papers published 2001–13. MeSH terms used were Maxillofacial prosthesis and Craniofacial prosthesis OR Craniofacial prostheses. We found a total of 2630 papers, and after duplicates had been removed we analysed the rest and found 25 papers for review. Of these, 12 were excluded because they were case reports or non-systematic reviews. Of the remaining 13, 10 described group analyses and seemed appropriate to find practitioner’s choices, as cited in the abstract (n=1611 prostheses). Three papers did not mention the type of prosthetic connection used, so were excluded. The most popular choices for different conditions were analysed, though the sites and retention systems were not specified in all 10 papers. The bar-clip system was the most used in auricular (6/10 papers) and nasal prostheses (4/10). For the orbital region, 6/10 favoured magnets. Non-osseointegrated mechanical or adhesive retention techniques are the least expensive and have no contraindications. When osseointegrated implants are possible, each facial region has a favoured system. The choice of system is influenced by two factors: standard practice and the abilities of the maxillofacial surgeon and maxillofacial prosthetist

Evaluation of HBV-Like circulation in wild and farm animals from Brazil and Uruguay

The origin of the hepatitis B virus is a subject of wide deliberation among researchers. As a result, increasing academic interest has focused on the spread of the virus in different animal species. However, the sources of viral infection for many of these animals are unknown since transmission may occur from animal to animal, human to human, animal to human, and human to animal. The aim of this study was to evaluate hepadnavirus circulation in wild and farm animals (including animals raised under wild or free conditions) from different sites in Brazil and Uruguay using serological and molecular tools. A total of 487 domestic wild and farm animals were screened for hepatitis B virus (HBV) serological markers and tested via quantitative and qualitative polymerase chain reaction (PCR) to detect viral DNA. We report evidence of HBsAg (surface antigen of HBV) and total anti-HBc (HBV core antigen) markers as well as low-copy hepadnavirus DNA among domestic and wild animals. According to our results, which were confirmed by partial genome sequencing, as the proximity between humans and animals increases, the potential for pathogen dispersal also increases. A wider knowledge and understanding of reverse zoonoses should be sought for an effective One Health response