Implant Failure Predictors in the Posterior Maxilla: A Retrospective Study of 273 Consecutive Implants

Background: The goal of this study was to retrospectively analyze a cohort of 136 patients who underwent dental implant placement in the posterior maxilla at the University of Connecticut Health Center to assess and identify predictors for implant failure in the posterior maxilla. Methods: Data were retrieved from patient charts to identify subjects older than 21 years of age who received dental implant(s) in the posterior maxilla. Patients without a postoperative baseline radiograph were excluded. A recall radiograph was taken 3 to 6 months after implant placement. If there was no recall radiograph, the subject was contacted for a recall visit that included a clinical evaluation and radiographs to determine the implant status. Based on a univariate screening, variables considered potential implant failure predictors included gender, diabetes, smoking, implant length, implant diameter, membrane use, sinus-elevation technique, and surgical complications. These parameters were further assessed, and a multivariable logistic regression was performed with implant failure as a dependant variable. All tests of significance were evaluated at the 0.05 error level. Results: Two hundred seventy-three implants were placed in the posterior maxilla. Fourteen implants failed (early and late failures combined), resulting in a 94.9% overall survival rate. The survival rates for the sinus-elevation group and native bone group were 92.2% and 96.7%, respectively (P = 0.090). Based on the multivariable analysis, sinus floor-elevation procedures were not associated with increased risk for implant failure (P = 0.702). In contrast, smoking and surgical complications had a statistically significant effect on implant failure; the odds ratios for implant failure were 6.4 (P = 0.025) and 8.2 (P = 0.004), respectively. Conclusion: Sinus-elevation procedures with simultaneous or staged implant placement do not increase the risk for implant failure, whereas smoking and surgical complications markedly increase the risk for implant failure.

Comparison between two caller groups of a medical call centre in Switzerland

OBJECTIVES: The incidence distribution of triage advice in the medical call centre Medi24 and the pattern of service utilisation were analysed with respect to two groups of callers with different insurance schemes. Individuals having contracted insurance of the Medi24 model could use the telephone consultation service of the medical call centre Medi24 (mainly part of the mandatory basic health insurance) voluntarily and free of charge whereas individuals holding an insurance policy of the Telmed model (special contract within the mandatory basic health insurance with a premium discount ranging from 8% to 12%) were obliged to have a telephone consultation before arranging an appointment with a medical doctor. METHODS: A cross-sectional study was carried out in the medical call centre Medi24 based on all triage datasets of the Medi24 and Telmed groups collected during the one year period from July 1st 2005 to June 30th 2006. The distribution of the six different urgency levels within the two groups and their respective pattern of service utilisation was determined. In a multivariable logistic regression model the Odds Ratio for every enquiry originating from the Telmed group versus those originating from the Medi24 group was calculated. RESULTS: During a one-year period 48 388 triage requests reached the medical call centre Medi24, 56% derived from the Telmed group and 44% from the Medi24 group. Within the Medi24 group more than 25% of the individuals received self-care advice, within the Telmed group, on the other hand, only about 18% received such advice. In contrast, 27% of the Telmed triage requests but only 18% of the Medi24 triage requests resulted in the advice to make a routine appointment with a medical doctor. The probability that an individual of the Telmed group obtained the advice to go to the accident and emergency department was lower than for an individual of the Medi24 group (OR 0.77, 95% CI 0.60-0.99). Likewise, the probability of self-care advice was decreased in regard to the Medi24 group (OR 0.80, 95% CI 0.75-0.85). However, regarding the advice to make a routine appointment with a medical doctor, the Telmed group was represented more frequently than the Medi24 group (OR 1.36, 95% CI 1.28-1.44). CONCLUSION: In respect of the triage advice, the Telmed group differed significantly from the Medi24 group within all urgency levels. The differences between the two groups in respect of the advice given were still less pronounced than expected against the background of their different contract conditions and the disparate temporal pattern of utilisation. We interprete this finding with the fact that appraising the urgency of health problems appropriately seems to be very difficult for the majority of people seeking advice.

University of Wisconsin versus St. Thomas' Hospital solution for human donor heart preservation

Prolongation of the safe period of ischemia of the heart is an efficient way to overcome donor organ shortage, as demonstrated in renal and hepatic transplantation. We present the results of a prospective, randomized study comparing preservation with University of Wisconsin solution (UWS) versus St. Thomas' Hospital solution (STS) in clinical heart transplantation. A total of 39 patients were enrolled in the study (n = 20 for UWS and n = 19 for STS). Hemodynamic, electron microscopic, and biochemical evaluation did not reveal any significant differences in postoperative myocardial performance. Only the number of intraoperative defibrillations (0.82 for UWS versus 1.7 for STS) and the rhythm stability after reperfusion (13/20 UWS hearts versus 6/19 STS hearts in sinus rhythm) were significantly different. Heart preservation with UWS and STS appears to be of comparable efficacy at mean ischemic times of less than 4 hours.