E.A.O. guidelines for the use of diagnostic imaging in implant dentistry 2011. A consensus workshop organized by the European Association for Osseointegration at the Medical University of Warsaw

Diagnostics imaging is an essential component of patient selection and treatment planning in oral rehabilitation by means of osseointegrated implants. In 2002, the EAO produced and published guidelines on the use of diagnostic imaging in implant dentistry. Since that time, there have been significant developments in both the application of cone beam computed tomography as well as in the range of surgical and prosthetic applications that can potentially benefit from its use. However, medical exposure to ionizing radiation must always be justified and result in a net benefit to the patient. The as low a dose as is reasonably achievable principle must also be applied taking into account any alternative techniques that might achieve the same objectives. This paper reports on current EAO recommendations arising from a consensus meeting held at the Medical University of Warsaw (2011) to update these guidelines. Radiological considerations are detailed, including justification and optimization, with a special emphasis on the obligations that arise for those who prescribe or undertake such investigations. The paper pays special attention to clinical indications and radiographic diagnostic considerations as well as to future developments and trends.

Labor induction in preeclampsia: is misoprostol more effective than dinoprostone?

OBJECTIVE: To compare the efficacy of vaginal misoprostol versus dinoprostone for induction of labor (IOL) in patients with preeclampsia according to the WHO criteria. STUDY DESIGN: Ninety-eight patients were retrospectively analyzed. A total of 47 patients received 3 mg dinoprostone suppositories every 6 h (max. 6 mg/24 h) whereas 51 patients in the misoprostol group received either 50 mug misoprostol vaginally every 12 h, or 25 mug every 6 h (max. 100 mug/24 h). Primary outcomes were vaginal delivery within 24 and 48 h, respectively. RESULTS: The probability of delivering within 48 h was more than three-fold higher in the misoprostol than in the dinoprostone group: odds ratio (OR)=3.48; 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.24, 10.30, whereas no significant difference was observed within 24 h (P=0.34). No correlation was seen between a ripe cervix prior to IOL and delivery within 24/48 h (P=0.33 and P=1.0, respectively). More cesarean sections were performed in the dinoprostone group due to failed IOL (P=0.0009). No significant differences in adverse maternal outcome were observed between both study groups, whereas more neonates (12 vs. 6) of the dinoprostone group were admitted to the NICU (P=0.068). CONCLUSION: This study suggests that misoprostol may have some advantages compared to dinoprostone, including improved efficacy and lower cost of the drug, even in cases of preeclampsia.