Objectives: The purpose of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to compare implant-supported removable partial dentures (ISRPDs) with distal extension removable partial dentures (DERPDs) in terms of patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs: patients' quality of life and satisfaction) and to determine mechanical and biological complications associated with ISRPDs.Material and Methods: An electronic search was performed on four databases to identify studies treating Kennedy class I or II edentulous patients and which compared ISRPDs with DERPDs in terms of PROMS and studies, which evaluated mechanical and biological complications associated ISRPDs. Two authors independently extracted data on quality of life, patient satisfaction, and biomechanical complications from these studies. The risk of bias was assessed for each study, and for PROMs, the authors performed a meta-analysis by using a random-effects model.Results: Thirteen articles were included based on the selection criteria. The difference in mean scores for quality of life (30.5 ± 1.8; 95% confidence interval [CI], 24.9-36.1) and patient satisfaction (−20.8 ± 0.2; 95% CI, −23.7 to −17.8) between treatments with conventional and implant-supported removable dentures was statistically significant (p < .05). Implant-supported removable dentures improved patients' overall quality of life and satisfaction. Some mechanical and biological complications, such as clasp adjustment, abutment or implant loosening, marginal bone resorption, and peri-implant mucositis, were noted in ISRPDs during patient follow-up. Studies assessing PROMs were very heterogeneous (I 2 = 65%, p = .85; I 2 = 75%, p = .88).Conclusions: ISRPDs significantly improved quality of life and patient satisfaction. Some mechanical and biological complications have been associated with ISRPDs treatment, requiring regular monitoring of patients to avoid the occurrence of these complications.
BackgroundCircumcision in hemophiliacs is a delicate surgery because of bleeding risks that could be avoided by adequate substitution of coagulation factor. This practice is very challenging in countries where anti hemophilic treatment is inaccessible. The study aimed to evaluate a circumcision protocol in hemophilia A using low quantities of factor concentrates.MethodsThis prospective study included 26 hemophiliacs A who underwent circumcision in 2014. Medical treatment protocol using low quantity of factor concentrates was drafted by physicians of the Hemophilia Treatment Center and the surgical protocol by experienced surgeons. Assessment criteria were: number of hospitalization days, number of exposure days to factor concentrates, delay to healing and occurrence of bleeding events.ResultsMean age was 9.6 years (1–30). Hemophiliacs patients were classified as severe (n = 8), moderate (n = 9) and mild form (n = 9). Mean number of exposure days to factor VIII concentrates was 6.9 days (5–12) in children and 10.75 days (7–16) in adults (p = 0.0049); mean number of hospitalization days was 3.68 days (2–10) in children and 13.5 days (13–15) in adults (p = 0.0000); delay to healing was 26.47 days (20–35) in children and 25.25 days (22–30) in adults (p = 0.697); five haemophiliacs (19.2%) presented bleeding events after the circumcision. The mean amount of FIII concentrates used per patient was 1743 IU (810–2340).ConclusionThe study shows treatment protocol using low quantity of factor concentrates is efficient in hemophilia patients who underwent circumcision.
Patients with inborn errors of the alternative NF-κB pathway have low
thymic AIRE expression, leading to the development of auto-Abs
neutralizing type I IFNs, and severe viral diseases.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.