Clinical Performance of Monolithic Zirconia Crowns on Titanium–Zirconium Reduced‐Diameter Implants in the Molar Area : Interim Data at Three Years of a Randomized Controlled Trial

Aim The aim of the present study was (i) to evaluate the clinical performance of reduced‐diameter implants placed in the molar area and (ii) to test whether monolithic zirconia implant‐supported crowns lead to similar clinical outcomes compared to porcelain‐fused‐to‐metal crowns. Materials and Methods A total of 76 patients needing a single implant crown in the posterior region were recruited. All patients received a titanium–zirconium reduced‐diameter implant (Straumann Roxolid, Tissue Level, Standard Plus, diameter 3.3 mm, regular neck) randomly allocated to receive either a (1) monolithic zirconia crown (test) or (2) porcelain‐fused‐to‐metal crown (control). Implant survival, prosthetic outcomes, and patient‐reported outcomes were assessed at crown delivery and after 3 years of follow‐up. Marginal bone levels (MBL) as well as clinical parameters including probing depth (PD), bleeding on probing (BOP), and plaque levels (PCR) were also recorded. Results A total of 59 patients were available at the 3‐year follow‐up; 32 patients with a monolithic zirconia crown (TEST) and 27 patients with a porcelain‐fused‐to‐metal crown (CONTROL). 14 implants (11 implant fractures/3 aseptic losses) were lost leading to an estimated implant survival rate of 80% ± 5.1% (95% CI 70.8%–90.8%). Prosthetic complications were limited to the control group and involved minor chippings. Conclusions This type of reduced‐diameter implant to support single implant molar crowns in the molar area cannot be recommended. Monolithic zirconia crowns appear to be a viable option in the posterior region showing similar prosthetic outcomes to porcelain‐fused‐to‐metal crowns

Which is the optimal treatment and the most significant prognostic factor for reverse shoulder arthroplasty in case of PHAROS 2 humeral bone loss? A proportional meta-analysis of nononcologic patients

Background: Reverse total shoulder arthroplasty (rTSA) for proximal humerus bone loss is linked with increased risks of complications and reoperation. This study aimed to compare the complication and reoperation rates between patients with unaddressed humeral defect (control group [CG]) and those receiving proximal humerus allograft prosthesis composite (APC) or mega-prosthesis (MP) (study group [SG]). Methods: Systematic searches were conducted in MEDLINE/PubMed, Web of Science, and Embase to find studies on rTSA outcomes in proximal humerus bone loss cases. Search terms included boolean combinations of "proximal humerus bone loss," "revision shoulder replacement," "arthroplasty," "prosthesis," and "reconstruction." Studies with <24 months follow-up, humeral defects over 7 cm or under 3 cm, case reports, and oncologic resections were excluded. Study design, demographic data, surgical methods, and outcomes were extracted and analyzed. A proportional meta-analysis compared complication and reoperation rates between CG and SG, with subgroup analyses for APC and MP. Multivariate logistic regression identified predictive prognostic factors, using the modified Coleman Methodology Score for bias risk assessment. Results: Thirteen studies were included; seven (167 cases) in CG, four (113 cases) in SG treated with APC, and two (51 cases) with MP. The two groups were comparable in modified Coleman Methodology Score, age, sex, medium follow-up, preoperative visual analog scale, elevation, number of previous surgeries, medium bone loss, and preoperative diagnosis. No significant differences were found in complication and reoperation rates between CG and SG or between APC and MP groups (P = .3, .6, .19, and .36, respectively). Only preoperative infection was associated with higher complications and reoperation rates (P = .04 and P = .015, respectively). Conclusion: Using APC or MP during rTSA in case of Proximal Humeral Arthroplasty Revision Osseous inSufficiency (PHAROS) 2 bone loss is neither associated with a lower complication and reoperation rate nor with better postoperative pain or elevation. Patients affected by preoperative infection are at higher risk of developing symptomatic complications and suffer reoperation

Biological resource center for seeds : The BRC GAMèT in Montpellier

The BRC GAMèT (Biological Resource Center: Graines Adaptées aux conditions Méditerranéennes et Tropicales) gather together since april 2019 within the new ARCAD building, three CRBs storing seeds genetic resources from INRA and Cirad institutes: CRB Zea, CRB-T and CRB Medicago. The objective is to manage in the same team the different seed collections including more than 30 000 accessions of cotton, corn, fonio, mil, peanut, rice, sorghum, Medicago and forest genetic resources. A team of twelve persons will join forces and methodologies to introduce, conserve distribute and multiply those seeds that represent a richness at national and international levels. The aim is to conserve the diversity of genetic resources at a quality level for the benefit of the scientific community and the public. The BRC belongs to the plant pilar of the French national network of BRC Rare and participate to the database project “Florilège”. Each plant is also link with research programs and scientific team in order to analyze and better involve genetic resources in scientific challenges such as climate change responses and integration into agro-ecological project

Eleven strategies for making reproducible research and open science training the norm at research institutions

Across disciplines, researchers increasingly recognize that open science and reproducible research practices may accelerate scientific progress by allowing others to reuse research outputs and by promoting rigorous research that is more likely to yield trustworthy results. While initiatives, training programs, and funder policies encourage researchers to adopt reproducible research and open science practices, these practices are uncommon inmanyfields. Researchers need training to integrate these practicesinto their daily work. We organized a virtual brainstorming event, in collaboration with the German Reproducibility Network, to discuss strategies for making reproducible research and open science training the norm at research institutions. Here, weoutline eleven strategies, concentrated in three areas:(1)offering training, (2)adapting research assessment criteria and program requirements, and (3) building communities. We provide a brief overview of each strategy, offer tips for implementation,and provide links to resources. Our goal is toencourage members of the research community to think creatively about the many ways they can contribute and collaborate to build communities,and make reproducible research and open sciencetraining the norm. Researchers may act in their roles as scientists, supervisors, mentors, instructors, and members of curriculum, hiring or evaluation committees. Institutionalleadership and research administration andsupport staff can accelerate progress by implementing change across their institution

Eleven strategies for making reproducible research and open science training the norm at research institutions

Across disciplines, researchers increasingly recognize that open science and reproducible research practices may accelerate scientific progress by allowing others to reuse research outputs and by promoting rigorous research that is more likely to yield trustworthy results. While initiatives, training programs, and funder policies encourage researchers to adopt reproducible research and open science practices, these practices are uncommon inmanyfields. Researchers need training to integrate these practicesinto their daily work. We organized a virtual brainstorming event, in collaboration with the German Reproducibility Network, to discuss strategies for making reproducible research and open science training the norm at research institutions. Here, weoutline eleven strategies, concentrated in three areas:(1)offering training, (2)adapting research assessment criteria and program requirements, and (3) building communities. We provide a brief overview of each strategy, offer tips for implementation,and provide links to resources. Our goal is toencourage members of the research community to think creatively about the many ways they can contribute and collaborate to build communities,and make reproducible research and open sciencetraining the norm. Researchers may act in their roles as scientists, supervisors, mentors, instructors, and members of curriculum, hiring or evaluation committees. Institutionalleadership and research administration andsupport staff can accelerate progress by implementing change across their institution

Mapping European Association of Urology Guideline Practice Across Europe: An Audit of Androgen Deprivation Therapy Use Before Prostate Cancer Surgery in 6598 Cases in 187 Hospitals Across 31 European Countries

Background: Evidence-practice gaps exist in urology. We previously surveyed European Association of Urology (EAU) guidelines for strong recommendations underpinned by high-certainty evidence that impact patient experience for which practice variations were suspected. The recommendation “Do not offer neoadjuvant androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) before surgery for patients with prostate cancer” was prioritised for further investigation. ADT before surgery is neither clinically effective nor cost effective and has serious side effects. The first step in improving implementation problems is to understand their extent. A clear picture of practice regarding ADT before surgery across Europe is not available. Objective: To assess current ADT use before prostate cancer surgery in Europe. Design, setting, and participants: This was an observational cross-sectional study. We retrospectively audited recent ADT practices in a multicentre international setting. We used nonprobability purposive sampling, aiming for breadth in terms of low- versus high-volume, academic, versus community and public versus private centres. Outcome measurements and statistical analysis: Our primary outcome was adherence to the ADT recommendation. Descriptive statistics and a multilevel model were used to investigate differences between countries across different factors (volume, centre type, and funding type). Subgroup analyses were performed for patients with low, intermediate, and high risk, and for those with locally advanced prostate cancer. We also collected reasons for nonadherence. Results and limitations: We included 6598 patients with prostate cancer from 187 hospitals in 31 countries from January 1, 2017 to May 1, 2020. Overall, nonadherence was 2%, (range 0–32%). Most of the variability was found in the high-risk subgroup, for which nonadherence was 4% (range 0–43%). Reasons for nonadherence included attempts to improve oncological outcomes or preoperative tumour parameters; attempts to control the cancer because of long waiting lists; and patient preference (changing one's mind from radiotherapy to surgery after neoadjuvant ADT had commenced or feeling that the side effects were intolerable). Although we purposively sampled for variety within countries (public/private, academic/community, high/low-volume), a selection bias toward centres with awareness of guidelines is possible, so adherence rates may be overestimated. Conclusions: EAU guidelines recommend against ADT use before prostate cancer surgery, yet some guideline-discordant ADT use remains at the cost of patient experience and an additional payer and provider burden. Strategies towards discontinuation of inappropriate preoperative ADT use should be pursued. Patient summary: Androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) is sometimes used in men with prostate cancer who will not benefit from it. ADT causes side effects such as weight gain and emotional changes and increases the risk of cardiovascular disease, diabetes, and osteoporosis. Guidelines strongly recommend that men opting for surgery should not receive ADT, but it is unclear how well the guidance is followed. We asked urologists across Europe how patients in their institutions were treated over the past few years. Most do not use ADT before surgery, but this still happens in some places. More research is needed to help doctors to stop using ADT in patients who will not benefit from it