Internet y el español / José Antonio Millán. Madrid: Fundación Retevisión, 2001

Sección: ReseñasEl pasado 4 de julio se presentó en el Circulo de Bellas Artes de Madrid el libro de José Antonio Millán Internet y el español. La presentación corrió a cargo de Juan Luis Cebrián, reciente académico de la lengua y buen conocedor de los medios de comunicación. A continuación tomó la palabra el autor. José Antonio es lingüista, ha sido editor tradicional y ahora es editor digital. Ha dirigido el equipo que creó el primer diccionario electrónico del español CD ROM del diccionario de la Real Academia de la Lengua y el proyecto del Centro Virtual Cervantes.N

Alternative caries management options for primary molars:2.5-yr outcomes of a randomised clinical trial

Less invasive caries management techniques for treating cavitated carious primary teeth, which involve the concept of caries control by managing the activity of the biofilm, are becoming common. This study aimed to compare the clinical efficacy (minor/major failures) and survival rates (successful cases without any failures) of 3 carious lesion treatment approaches, the Hall Technique (HT), non-restorative caries treatment (NRCT), and conventional restorations (CR), for the management of occlusoproximal caries lesions (ICDAS 3-5) in primary molars. Results at 2.5 years are presented. A total of 169 children (3- to 8-year-olds) were enrolled in this secondary care-based, 3-arm parallel-group, randomised controlled trial. Participants were allocated to: HT (n = 52; sealing caries with stainless-steel crowns without caries removal), NRCT (n = 52; opening up the cavity and applying fluoride varnish), CR (n = 65; control arm, complete caries removal and compomer restoration). Statistical analyses were: non-parametric Kruskal-Wallis analysis of variance, Mann-Whitney U test and Kaplan-Meier survival analyses. One hundred and forty-two participants (84%; HT = 40/52; NRCT = 44/52; CR = 58/65) had follow-up data of 1-33 months (mean = 26). Overall, 25 (HT = 2, NRCT = 9, CR = 14) of 142 participants (17.6%) presented with at least 1 minor failure (reversible pulpitis, caries progression, or secondary caries; p = 0.013, CI = 0.012-0.018; Mann-Whitney U test). Ten (HT = 1, NRCT = 4, CR = 5) of 142 participants (7.04%) experienced at least 1 major failure (irreversible pulpitis, abscess, unrestorable tooth; p = 0.043, CI = 0.034-0.045). Independent comparisons between 2 samples found that NRCT-CR had no statistically significant difference in failures (p > 0.05), but for CR-HT (p = 0.037, CI = 0.030-0.040) and for NRCT-HT (p = 0.011, CI = 0.010-0.016; Kruskal-Wallis test) significant differences were observed. Cumulative survival rates were HT = 92.5%, NRCT = 70.5%, and CR = 67.2% (p = 0.012). NRCT and CR outcomes were comparable. HT performed better than NRCT and CR for all outcomes. This study was funded by the Paediatric Dentistry Department, Greifswald University, Germany (Trial registration No. NCT01797458)

Cost-effectiveness of managing cavitated primary molar caries lesions:A randomized trial in Germany

The Hall Technique (HT), Non-Restorative Cavity Control (NRCC) and conventional carious tissue removal and restoration (CR) are strategies for managing cavitated caries lesions in primary molars. A randomized controlled three-arm parallel group trial in a university clinic in Germany was used to measure the cost-effectiveness of these strategies. 142 children (HT: 40; NRCC: 44; CR: 58) were followed over a mean 2.5 years. A German healthcare perspective was chosen. The primary outcome was estimated molar survival; secondary outcomes were not needing extraction, not having pain or needing endodontic treatment/extraction, or not needing any re-intervention at all. Initial, maintenance and endodontic/restorative/extraction re-treatment costs were derived from fee items of the statutory insurance. Cumulative cost-effectiveness and cost-effectiveness acceptability were estimated from bootstrapped samples. HT molars survived longer (estimated mean; 95% CI: 29.7; 26.6–30.5 months) than NRCC (25.3; 21.2–28.7 months) and CR molars (24.1; 22.0–26.2 months). HT was also less costly (66; 62–71 Euro) than NRCC (296; 274–318 Euro) and CR (83; 73–92 Euro). HT was more cost-effective than NRCC and CR in >96% of samples, and had acceptable cost-effectiveness regardless of a payer’s willingness-to-pay. This superior cost-effectiveness was confirmed for secondary health outcomes. Cost-advantages were even more pronounced when costs were calculated per year of tooth retention (mean annual costs were HT: 29, NRCC: 154, CR: 61 Euro). HT was more cost-effective than CR or NRCC for managing cavitated caries lesions in primary molars, yielding better dental health outcomes at lower costs. If choosing between these three strategies for managing cavitated caries lesions in primary molars, dentists should prefer HT over NRCC or CR. This would also save costs for the healthcare payer

Hall technique for primary teeth: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

BackgroundThere has been a debate about the use of Hall Technique (HT), whether it can be considered as a standard technique for the management of carious primary molars.AimTo summarise the evidence on HT for managing dentine caries in primary teeth.DesignMEDLINE, Embase, CENTRAL and Epistemonikos databases were searched for clinical studies conducted from 2007 to 2021 evaluating HT in primary teeth. Two reviewers independently screened, data extracted and quality assessed the studies.ResultsEleven publications from eight unique studies were included. Four were of low risk of bias overall and five studies were included in a meta-analysis. Overall, HT was 49 % (RR 1.49 [95 % CI: 1.15-1.93], I2 =89.5 %, p 2 =0 %, p ConclusionsHT is successful option for the management of caries in primary teeth, particularly for proximal or multi-surface dentine lesions. It is well-tolerated by children and acceptable to parent, with mild adverse effects reported

Effect of Hydrocortisone on Mortality and Organ Support in Patients With Severe COVID-19: The REMAP-CAP COVID-19 Corticosteroid Domain Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: Evidence regarding corticosteroid use for severe coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is limited. Objective: To determine whether hydrocortisone improves outcome for patients with severe COVID-19. Design, Setting, and Participants: An ongoing adaptive platform trial testing multiple interventions within multiple therapeutic domains, for example, antiviral agents, corticosteroids, or immunoglobulin. Between March 9 and June 17, 2020, 614 adult patients with suspected or confirmed COVID-19 were enrolled and randomized within at least 1 domain following admission to an intensive care unit (ICU) for respiratory or cardiovascular organ support at 121 sites in 8 countries. Of these, 403 were randomized to open-label interventions within the corticosteroid domain. The domain was halted after results from another trial were released. Follow-up ended August 12, 2020. Interventions: The corticosteroid domain randomized participants to a fixed 7-day course of intravenous hydrocortisone (50 mg or 100 mg every 6 hours) (n = 143), a shock-dependent course (50 mg every 6 hours when shock was clinically evident) (n = 152), or no hydrocortisone (n = 108). Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary end point was organ support-free days (days alive and free of ICU-based respiratory or cardiovascular support) within 21 days, where patients who died were assigned -1 day. The primary analysis was a bayesian cumulative logistic model that included all patients enrolled with severe COVID-19, adjusting for age, sex, site, region, time, assignment to interventions within other domains, and domain and intervention eligibility. Superiority was defined as the posterior probability of an odds ratio greater than 1 (threshold for trial conclusion of superiority >99%). Results: After excluding 19 participants who withdrew consent, there were 384 patients (mean age, 60 years; 29% female) randomized to the fixed-dose (n = 137), shock-dependent (n = 146), and no (n = 101) hydrocortisone groups; 379 (99%) completed the study and were included in the analysis. The mean age for the 3 groups ranged between 59.5 and 60.4 years; most patients were male (range, 70.6%-71.5%); mean body mass index ranged between 29.7 and 30.9; and patients receiving mechanical ventilation ranged between 50.0% and 63.5%. For the fixed-dose, shock-dependent, and no hydrocortisone groups, respectively, the median organ support-free days were 0 (IQR, -1 to 15), 0 (IQR, -1 to 13), and 0 (-1 to 11) days (composed of 30%, 26%, and 33% mortality rates and 11.5, 9.5, and 6 median organ support-free days among survivors). The median adjusted odds ratio and bayesian probability of superiority were 1.43 (95% credible interval, 0.91-2.27) and 93% for fixed-dose hydrocortisone, respectively, and were 1.22 (95% credible interval, 0.76-1.94) and 80% for shock-dependent hydrocortisone compared with no hydrocortisone. Serious adverse events were reported in 4 (3%), 5 (3%), and 1 (1%) patients in the fixed-dose, shock-dependent, and no hydrocortisone groups, respectively. Conclusions and Relevance: Among patients with severe COVID-19, treatment with a 7-day fixed-dose course of hydrocortisone or shock-dependent dosing of hydrocortisone, compared with no hydrocortisone, resulted in 93% and 80% probabilities of superiority with regard to the odds of improvement in organ support-free days within 21 days. However, the trial was stopped early and no treatment strategy met prespecified criteria for statistical superiority, precluding definitive conclusions. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02735707

Effect of angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor and angiotensin receptor blocker initiation on organ support-free days in patients hospitalized with COVID-19

IMPORTANCE Overactivation of the renin-angiotensin system (RAS) may contribute to poor clinical outcomes in patients with COVID-19. Objective To determine whether angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitor or angiotensin receptor blocker (ARB) initiation improves outcomes in patients hospitalized for COVID-19. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS In an ongoing, adaptive platform randomized clinical trial, 721 critically ill and 58 non–critically ill hospitalized adults were randomized to receive an RAS inhibitor or control between March 16, 2021, and February 25, 2022, at 69 sites in 7 countries (final follow-up on June 1, 2022). INTERVENTIONS Patients were randomized to receive open-label initiation of an ACE inhibitor (n = 257), ARB (n = 248), ARB in combination with DMX-200 (a chemokine receptor-2 inhibitor; n = 10), or no RAS inhibitor (control; n = 264) for up to 10 days. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES The primary outcome was organ support–free days, a composite of hospital survival and days alive without cardiovascular or respiratory organ support through 21 days. The primary analysis was a bayesian cumulative logistic model. Odds ratios (ORs) greater than 1 represent improved outcomes. RESULTS On February 25, 2022, enrollment was discontinued due to safety concerns. Among 679 critically ill patients with available primary outcome data, the median age was 56 years and 239 participants (35.2%) were women. Median (IQR) organ support–free days among critically ill patients was 10 (–1 to 16) in the ACE inhibitor group (n = 231), 8 (–1 to 17) in the ARB group (n = 217), and 12 (0 to 17) in the control group (n = 231) (median adjusted odds ratios of 0.77 [95% bayesian credible interval, 0.58-1.06] for improvement for ACE inhibitor and 0.76 [95% credible interval, 0.56-1.05] for ARB compared with control). The posterior probabilities that ACE inhibitors and ARBs worsened organ support–free days compared with control were 94.9% and 95.4%, respectively. Hospital survival occurred in 166 of 231 critically ill participants (71.9%) in the ACE inhibitor group, 152 of 217 (70.0%) in the ARB group, and 182 of 231 (78.8%) in the control group (posterior probabilities that ACE inhibitor and ARB worsened hospital survival compared with control were 95.3% and 98.1%, respectively). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE In this trial, among critically ill adults with COVID-19, initiation of an ACE inhibitor or ARB did not improve, and likely worsened, clinical outcomes. TRIAL REGISTRATION ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT0273570

40-Year Longitudinal Caries Development in German Adolescents in the Light of New Caries Measures

This study assessed the 40-year longitudinal caries development in German adolescents in the light of the sixth National Oral Health Survey in Children (NOHSC, 2016) employing initial DMFT (IDMFT), Significant Caries Index (SiC) and Specific Affected Caries Index (SaC). On the basis of the current NOHSC (randomized cluster selection using school list or regional community school surveys, 55,956 12-year-old sixth-graders examined by 482 calibrated community/study dentists) DMFT, SiC, a novel IDMFT including initial lesions (IT) and the recently introduced SaC were calculated and also recalculated for national and international surveys from the last 4 decades. In 2016, 78.8% of children were caries-free (DMFT = 0), 65.5% including IT lesions. The mean DMFT was 0.44 (single components: DT = 0.14, MT = 0.02, FT = 0.29, IT = 0.52) showing a clear association with the school type as marker for the socio-economic status. The mean number of affected teeth in children with DMFT >0 was 2.07 (SaC) in comparison to almost 9 teeth in the 1970s. The current care index on the tooth level was 66.3%, leaving only 7.7% of children with restorative treatment needs. Longitudinally, a continuous caries decline of more than 80%, including the risk groups (SiC/SaC), to an internationally extremely low level was observed. In conclusion, the National Oral Health Surveys reveal a continuous caries decline to a very low caries level in 12-year-old 6th-graders in Germany even if IT lesions are included (IDMFT). In spite of proportional reductions in the risk groups (SiC/SaC), the polarized caries distribution according to socio-economic parameters reveals the need for targeted preventive programmes

Caries Trends in the Primary Dentition of 6- to 7-Year-old Schoolchildren in Germany from 1994 to 2016: Results from the German National Oral Health Surveys in Children

Long-term nationally representative caries data in the primary dentition are rare, but nonetheless central to assess needs in caries prevention and treatment. This study evaluated the prevalence and trends of caries levels in the primary dentition of 6- to 7-year-olds in Germany as a whole and its federal states individually. In 2016, employing a randomized cluster selection, 6- to 7-year-old first graders were included in the National German Oral Health Survey performed regularly since 1994/95. Children were examined by 482 calibrated dentists in all 17 German regions using the WHO criteria for the decayed, missing, and filled teeth (dmft) including the assessment of initial carious lesions (it). In total, 151,555 6- to 7-year-olds were examined. Caries prevalence in the primary dentition dropped from 65% in 1994 to 44% in 2016, while the mean caries experience dropped from 2.89 to 1.73 dmft (dt = 0.74, mt = 0.19, ft = 0.80). When initial lesions were included, the mean caries experience increased to idmft = 2.12 (it = 0.38). In 2016, 49.7% of the examined 6- to 7-year-olds were caries-free including initial lesions. The Care Index at the tooth level was 57.5%, and the Significant Caries Index was 4.84 dmft. Depending on the German region, the mean dmft varied considerably, ranging from 1.37 to 2.31. In conclusion, despite the overall caries decline in 6- to 7-year-olds in Germany, only minor caries reductions were observed over the last decade, with a still existing high proportion of untreated dental decay. This calls for more effective preventive and restorative efforts with focus on the primary dentition in Germany