56-month clinical performance of Class I and II resin composite restorations

Objective: This study evaluated the 56-month clinical performance of Class I and II resin composite restorations. Filtek P60 was compared with Filtek Z250, which are both indicated for posterior restorations but differ in terms of handling characteristics. The null hypothesis tested was that there is no difference in the clinical performance of the two resin composites in posterior teeth. Material and Methods: Thirty-three patients were treated by the same operator, who prepared 48 Class I and 42 Class II cavities, which were restored with Single Bond/Filtek Z250 or Single Bond/Filtek P60 restorative systems. Restorations were evaluated by two independent examiners at baseline and after 56 months, using the modified USPHS criteria. Data were analyzed statistically using Chi-square and Fisher's Exact tests (alpha=0.05). Results: After 56 months, 25 patients (31 Class I and 36 Class II) were analyzed. A 3% failure rate occurred due to secondary caries and excessive loss of anatomic form for P60. For both restorative systems, there were no significant differences in secondary caries and postoperative sensitivity. However, significant changes were observed with respect to anatomic form, marginal discoloration, and marginal adaptation. Significant decreases in surface texture were observed exclusively for the Z250 restorations. Conclusions: Both restorative systems can be used for posterior restorations and can be expected to perform well in the oral environment.

A study of effectiveness of midazolam sedation for prevention of myocardial arrhythmias in endosseous implant placement

Purpose: The study aimed to assess electrocardiographic alterations during oral implant placement surgeries under local anesthesia (lidocaine chlorhydrate with epinephrine), using 15 mg of midazolam as an anxiolytic premedication. Material and methods: The study randomly selected 20 patients, aged 21-50 years old, requiring bilateral mandibular dental implants. Each patient was assessed using placebo on one side and midazolam on the contralateral side, with random, double-blinded distribution. The electrocardiogram recorded 12 static leads every 2 min, while D2 derivations were recorded continuously. Results: No statistically significant differences were observed between the placebo and midazolam when analyzing the morphological behavior of the electrocardiographic wave and the presence of arrhythmias during the experiment. However, under sedation, assessment of the behavior of electrocardiographic parameters during different stages of the procedure revealed statistically significant differences (P<0.05) for heart rate, P-wave amplitude and duration of the RR and QTc intervals. The arrhythmias detected were considered low risk for patients without systemic alterations and were observed in 53.3% of patients. The most frequently occurring alterations were tachycardia, bradycardia, supraventricular and ventricular extrasystoles and blocked atrial extrasystole, which were similar for both placebo and midazolam, with the greatest incidence during the initial, incision and bone drilling stages. Conclusion: The use of 15 mg of midazolam made no difference compared with the placebo. The use of 15 mg of midazolam did not show an advantage in the incidence of arrhythmias The anxiolytic premedication does not prevent myocardial arrhythmias in endosseous implant placement. The clinical significance of the arrhythmias may not represent serious risks.

Applying the National Institute for Clinical Excellence criteria to patients treated with the Genous (TM) Bio-engineered R stent (TM): a sub-study of the e-HEALING (Healthy Endothelial Accelerated Lining Inhibits Neointimal Growth) worldwide registry

The National Institute for Clinical Excellence (NICE) guidelines recommend the use of bare-metal stents (BMS) in non-complex lesions with a low risk of restenosis (diameter a parts per thousand yen3 mm and lesion length a parts per thousand currency sign15 mm) and the use of drug-eluting stents (DES) in more complex lesions with a high risk of restenosis (diameter < 3.0 mm or lesion length > 15 mm). However, the guidelines were created based on studies evaluating BMS and DES only. We performed an analysis of patients undergoing non-urgent percutaneous coronary intervention with the novel endothelial cell capturing stent (ECS). The ECS is coated with CD34(+) antibodies that attract circulating endothelial progenitor cells to the stent surface, thereby accelerating the endothelialization of the stented area. We analyzed all patients enrolled in the worldwide e-HEALING registry that met the NICE criteria for either low-risk or high-risk lesions and were treated with a parts per thousand yen1 ECS. The main study outcome was target vessel failure (TVF) at 12-month follow-up, defined as the composite of cardiac death or MI and target vessel revascularization (TVR). A total of 4,241 patients were assessed in the current analysis. At 12-month follow-up, TVF occurred in 7.0% of the patients with low-risk lesions and in 8.8% of the patients with high-risk lesions (p = 0.045). When evaluating the diabetic patients versus the non-diabetic patients per risk group, no significant differences were found in TVF, MI or TVR in either risk group. The ECS shows good clinical outcomes in lesions carrying either a high or a low risk of restenosis according to the NICE guidelines with comparable rates of cardiac death, myocardial infarction, and stent thrombosis. The TVF rate with ECS was slightly higher in patients with high-risk lesions, driven by higher clinically driven TLR. The risk of restenosis with ECS in patients carrying high-risk lesions needs to be carefully considered relative to other risks associated with DES. Furthermore, the presence of diabetes mellitus did not influence the incidence of TVF in either risk group.