Explore chapters and articles related to this topic
Immediate loading in every dental implant protocol – is it safe?
Published in J. Belinha, R.M. Natal Jorge, J.C. Reis Campos, Mário A.P. Vaz, João Manuel, R.S. Tavares, Biodental Engineering V, 2019
D. Soares, João S. Marques, J.C. Reis Campos, M. Sampaio-Fernandes, C. Silva, J.C. Sampaio-Fernandes
It is important to reline that there are two types of immediate loading protocols described in the literature. The 2014 systematic review and metaanalysis by Chrcanovic et al. revealed that implant failures are 1.13 times more likely to happen applying IFL compared to implants loaded under the INFL protocol with a relative risk reduction of 13% for INFL. However, these results did not reach statistical differences in respect to implant failure (p = 0.70) (Chrcanovic et al. 2014). In this way, it seems that is not the absence of loading per se that is critical for osseointegration, but rather the absence of excessive micromotion at the interface, which in fact suggest that splinting implants could be a protective solution (Chrcanovic et al. 2014).
Effect of congestive heart failure on safety and efficacy of left atrial appendage closure in patients with non-valvular atrial fibrillation
Published in Expert Review of Medical Devices, 2022
Mingzhong Zhao, Cody R. Hou, Jianlin Bai, Felix Post, Jens Walsleben, Nora Herold, Juan Yu, Zufeng Zhang, Jiangtao Yu
The effectiveness of LAAC on thromboembolic and major bleeding risks was analyzed by assessing the differences between the observed risks and the expected risks. The number of events per 100 patient-years was used to represent the observed annualized rate of thromboembolism or major bleeding, which was calculated as the total number of patients with thromboembolism or major bleeding divided by the total patient-years of follow-up in a group and then multiplied by 100. The expected annualized rate of thromboembolism or major bleeding was expressed as the mean percentage of each individually predicted annual risk in a group, according to the CHA2DS2-VASc and HAS-BLED scores, respectively [14,15]. Relative risk reduction (RRR) in thromboembolism or major bleeding was calculated as (expected rate − observed rate)/expected rate. The number needed to treat (NNT) to prevent one thromboembolic or major bleeding event by LAAC was expressed as 1/(expected annual event rate − observed annual event rate). The χ2 test, with relative risk (RR) and its 95% confidence intervals (CI), was used to evaluate the differences between the observed and expected risks in a group and compare the disparity in the extent of RRR between groups. To attenuate the impact of potential confounding factors on mortality or combined efficacy endpoints, we performed a propensity-score matching (PSM) analysis at a 1:1 ratio with a 0.02 propensity score tolerance to develop the matched CHF and non-CHF groups among the overall cohort. Kaplan–Meier estimation was used to generate the survival curve, in which the differences of cumulative incidence of mortality or combined efficacy endpoints were compared by using the log-rank test between the matched groups. We determined an odds ratio (OR) and its 95% CI for clinically relevant variables and built a multivariable logistic regression model to identify the independent predictors for all-cause death and cardiovascular death.