Microsurgical reconstruction of the head and neck - Current practice of maxillofacial units in Germany, Austria, and Switzerland

Refinement in microvascular reconstructive techniques over the last 30 years has enabled an increasing number of patients to be rehabilitated for both functional and aesthetic reasons. The purpose of this study was to evaluate different microsurgical practice, including perioperative management, in Germany, Austria, and Switzerland. The DÖSAK collaborative group for Microsurgical Reconstruction developed a detailed questionnaire which was circulated to units in the three countries. The current practice of the departments was evaluated. Thirty-eight questionnaires were completed resulting in a 47.5% response rate. A considerable variation in the number of microsurgical reconstructions per year was noted. In relation to the timing of bony reconstruction, 10 hospitals did reconstructions primarily (26.3%), 19 secondarily (50%) and 9 (23.7%) hospitals used both concepts. In the postoperative course, 15.8% of hospitals use inhibitors of platelet aggregation, most hospitals use low molecular heparin (52.6%) or other heparin products (44.7%). This survey shows variation in the performance, management, and care of microsurgical reconstructions of patients. This is due in part to the microvascular surgeons available in the unit but it is also due to different types of hospitals where various types of care can be performed in these patients needing special perioperative care.

Delivery room management of very low birth weight infants in Germany, Austria and Switzerland--a comparison of protocols

Surveys from the USA, Australia and Spain have shown significant inter-institutional variation in delivery room (DR) management of very low birth weight infants (VLBWI, <1500g) at birth, despite regularly updated international guidelines.

Behaviour of general dental practitioners in Germany regarding posterior restorations with flowable composites

Because the recommendation to use flowables for posterior restorations is still a matter of debate, the objective of this study was to determine in a nationwide survey in Germany how frequently, for what indications, and for what reasons, German dentists use flowable composites in posterior teeth. In addition, the acceptance of a simplified filling technique for posterior restorations using a low stress flowable composite was evaluated. Completed questionnaires from all over Germany were returned by 1,449 dentists resulting in a response rate of 48.5%; 78.6% of whom regularly used flowable composites for posterior restorations. The most frequent indications were cavity lining (80.1%) and small Class I fillings (74.2%). Flowables were less frequently used for small Class II fillings (22.7%) or other indications (13.6%). Most frequent reasons given for the use of flowables in posterior teeth were the prevention of voids (71.7%) and superior adaptation to cavity walls (72.9%), whereas saving time was considered less important (13.8%). Based on the subjective opinion of the dentists the simplified filling technique seemed to deliver advantages compared to the methods used to date particularly with regard to good cavity adaptation and ease of use. In conclusion, resin composites are the standard material type used for posterior restorations by general dental practitioners in Germany and most dentists use flowable composites as liners.