Single-tooth replacement: factors affecting different prosthetic treatment modalities

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>The choice between several treatment options for replacing a single missing tooth is influenced by clinical, dentist- and patient-immanent factors. This study aimed to determine the patient factors that would affect the treatment decision to replace a single missing tooth and to assess the satisfaction with several options.</p> <p>Method</p> <p>200 volunteers involved (121 females and 79 males) divided into four groups, Group A: consisted of patients with conventional fixed partial dentures or patients with resin bonded fixed partial dentures. Group B: consisted of patients who received removable partial dentures while Group C: consisted of patients who received a single implant supported crown, and a control group D: consisted of patients who received no treatment. Data were collected using a questionnaire.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>The highest percentage of males within groups (58%) was within the removable prostheses category. The majority of the subjects in the study reported that the main reason for replacing a missing tooth was for esthetic and function. Most important factor affecting the choice between treatment modalities was damaging the neighboring teeth. Pain, post operative sensitivity and dental phobia were important factors in choosing the prosthesis type and affected the control group patients not to have any treatment. The highest satisfaction percentage among groups studied was recorded for dental implants then FPD groups, while the least percentage were in both the control and RPD groups, for all aspects of function, esthetic and speech efficiency.</p> <p>Conclusions</p> <p>The final choice between FPD, RPD and implant depended on several factors which affected the decision making; among these is cost and patients' awareness of the different treatment options.</p

The Changing Landscape for Stroke\ua0Prevention in AF: Findings From the GLORIA-AF Registry Phase 2

Background GLORIA-AF (Global Registry on Long-Term Oral Antithrombotic Treatment in Patients with Atrial Fibrillation) is a prospective, global registry program describing antithrombotic treatment patterns in patients with newly diagnosed nonvalvular atrial fibrillation at risk of stroke. Phase 2 began when dabigatran, the first non\u2013vitamin K antagonist oral anticoagulant (NOAC), became available. Objectives This study sought to describe phase 2 baseline data and compare these with the pre-NOAC era collected during phase&nbsp;1. Methods During phase 2, 15,641 consenting patients were enrolled (November 2011 to December 2014); 15,092 were eligible. This pre-specified cross-sectional analysis describes eligible patients\u2019 baseline characteristics. Atrial fibrillation&nbsp;disease characteristics, medical outcomes, and concomitant diseases and medications were collected. Data were analyzed using descriptive statistics. Results Of the total patients, 45.5% were female; median age was 71 (interquartile range: 64, 78) years. Patients were from Europe (47.1%), North America (22.5%), Asia (20.3%), Latin America (6.0%), and the Middle East/Africa (4.0%). Most had high stroke risk (CHA2DS2-VASc [Congestive heart failure, Hypertension, Age&nbsp; 6575 years, Diabetes mellitus, previous Stroke, Vascular disease, Age 65 to 74 years, Sex category] score&nbsp; 652; 86.1%); 13.9% had moderate risk (CHA2DS2-VASc&nbsp;= 1). Overall, 79.9% received oral anticoagulants, of whom 47.6% received NOAC and 32.3% vitamin K antagonists (VKA); 12.1% received antiplatelet agents; 7.8% received no antithrombotic treatment. For comparison, the proportion of phase 1 patients (of N&nbsp;= 1,063 all eligible) prescribed VKA was 32.8%, acetylsalicylic acid 41.7%, and no therapy 20.2%. In Europe in phase 2, treatment with NOAC was more common than VKA (52.3% and 37.8%, respectively); 6.0% of patients received antiplatelet treatment; and 3.8% received no antithrombotic treatment. In North America, 52.1%, 26.2%, and 14.0% of patients received NOAC, VKA, and antiplatelet drugs, respectively; 7.5% received no antithrombotic treatment. NOAC use was less common in Asia (27.7%), where 27.5% of patients received VKA, 25.0% antiplatelet drugs, and 19.8% no antithrombotic treatment. Conclusions The baseline data from GLORIA-AF phase 2 demonstrate that in newly diagnosed nonvalvular atrial fibrillation patients, NOAC have been highly adopted into practice, becoming more frequently prescribed than VKA in&nbsp;Europe and North America. Worldwide, however, a large proportion of patients remain undertreated, particularly in&nbsp;Asia&nbsp;and North America. (Global Registry on Long-Term Oral Antithrombotic Treatment in Patients With Atrial Fibrillation [GLORIA-AF]; NCT01468701