Refine
Year of publication
- 2019 (3) (remove)
Document Type
- Article (3)
Language
- English (3) (remove)
Has Fulltext
- yes (3)
Is part of the Bibliography
- no (3)
Keywords
- Complication management (1)
- Decision (1)
- Fistula (1)
- Flaps (1)
- Grafts (1)
- Maxillary sinus (1)
- Oral surgery (1)
- Oroantral (1)
- Oroantral communication (1)
- bone‐screw (1)
Institute
- Medizin (3)
Objective: Biologics have an important role in the treatment of juvenile idiopathic arthritis (JIA). Long‐term safety data are limited. Direct comparison of different agents regarding occurrence of adverse events (AEs), especially of rare events, requires large quantities of patient years. In this analysis, long‐term safety with regard to AE of special interest (AESI) was compared between different biologics.
Methods: Patients with nonsystemic JIA were selected from the German BIKER registry. Safety assessments were based on AE reports. Number of AEs, serious AEs, and 25 predefined AESIs, including medically important infection, uveitis, inflammatory bowel disease, cytopenia, hepatic events, anaphylaxis, depression, pregnancy, malignancy, and death, were analyzed. Event rates and relative risks were calculated using AEs reported after first dose through 70 days after last dose.
Results: A total of 3873 patients entered the analysis with 7467 years of exposure to biologics. The most common AESIs were uveitis (n = 231) and medically important infections (n = 101). Cytopenia and elevation of transaminases were more frequent with tocilizumab (risk ratio [RR] 8.0, 95% confidence interval [CI] 4.2‐15, and RR 4.7, 95% CI 1.8‐12.2, respectively). Anaphylactic events were associated with intravenous route of administration. In patients ever exposed to biologics, eight malignancies were reported. Six pregnancies have been documented in patients with tumor necrosis factor inhibitors. No death occurred in this patient cohort during observation.
Conclusion: Surveillance of pharmacotherapy as provided by the BIKER registry is an import approach, especially for long‐term treatment of children. Overall, tolerance was acceptable. Differences between biologics were noted and should be considered in daily patient care.
After removal of a dental implant or extraction of a tooth in the upper jaw, the closure of an oroantral fistula (OAF) or oroantral communication (OAC) can be a difficult problem confronting the dentist and surgeon working in the oral and maxillofacial region. Oroantral communication (OAC) acts as a pathological pathway for bacteria and can cause infection of the antrum, which further obstructs the healing process as it is an unnatural communication between the oral cavity and the maxillary sinus. There are different ways to perform the surgical closure of the OAC. The decision-making in closure of oroantral communication and fistula is influenced by many factors. Consequently, it requires a combination of knowledge, experience, and information gathering. Previous narrative research has focused on assessments and comparisons of various surgical techniques for the closure of OAC/OAF. Thus, the decision-making process has not yet been described comprehensively.
The present study aims to illustrate all the factors that have to be considered in the management of OACs and OAFs that determine optimal treatment.
Objectives: Whereas stationary stability of implants has been postulated for decades, recent studies suggested a phenomenon termed implant migration. This describes a change in position of implants as a reaction to applied forces. The present study aims at employing image registration of in vivo micro‐CT scans from different time points and to assess (a) if migration of continuously loaded implants is possible and (b) migration correlates with the force magnitude.
Material and methods: Two customized machined implants were placed in the dorsal portion of caudal vertebrae in n = 61 rats and exposed to standardized forces (0.5 N, 1.0 N, and 1.5 N) applied through a flat nickel–titanium contraction spring, or no forces (control). Micro‐CT scans were performed at 0, 1, 2, 4, 6, and 8 weeks after surgery. The baseline image was registered with the forthcoming scans. Implant migration was measured as the Euclidean distance between implant tips. Bone remodeling was assessed between the baseline and the forthcoming scans.
Results: The findings confirmed a positional change of the implants at 2 and 8 weeks of healing, and a linear association between applied force and velocity of movement (anterior implant: χ2 = 12.12, df = 3, and p = .007 and posterior implant: χ2 = 20.35, df = 3, and p < .001). Bone apposition was observed around the implants and accompanied by formation of load‐bearing trabeculae and a general cortical thickening close and also distant to the implants.
Conclusion: The present analysis confirmed that implants can migrate in bone. The applied forces seemed to stimulate bone thickening, which could explain why implants migrate without affecting stability.