Browsing by Subject "clinical assessment"

Now showing 1 - 3 of 3
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
    Clinical performance of intentionally tilted implants versus axially positioned implants: A systematic review
    (Wiley, 2018-10) Lin, Wei-Shao; Eckert, Steven E.; Prosthodontics, School of Dentistry
    Objectives The aim of this review was to determine the clinical performance of dental implants that are intentionally tilted when compared with implants that are placed following the long axis of the residual alveolar ridge. Materials and methods A systematic review of the scientific literature using a predefined research question (PICO) and search strategy was undertaken. This search included five electronic databases. Two independent reviewers examined electronic databases and performed a manual review following search strategy to accomplish the item generation and reduction. Included articles were evaluated to determine the level of evidence. Data were extracted only from level I and level II studies, based on the Oxford Centre for Evidence‐based Medicine—Levels of Evidence (March 2009). If included studies were homogeneous in nature, data were to be accumulated. However, if included studies were heterogeneous in nature, only descriptive data would be reviewed and analyzed. Results A total of 811 articles were identified through the PICO question and search strategy. Detailed review of the abstracts and articles resulted in further item reduction, and 46 articles were included for full‐text review. A total of 42 articles were then selected for inclusion in the systematic review. The identified articles included two level I and 20 level II studies. In addition, 15 level IV, one gray literature, and four previous systematic reviews with meta‐analyses were also used in the study. The extracted data from the included studies demonstrated heterogeneity that prevented quantitative assessment, and only one level II study directly compared tilted and axially placed implants. Assessment of the descriptive data demonstrated no differences in implant survival, marginal bone loss, prosthesis survival, or patient‐reported outcome measures (PROMs) whether implants are placed axially or with intentional inclination of the coronal aspect of the implant toward the distal aspect of edentulous jaws. Conclusions Based upon the systematic review of the literature, an analysis of the descriptive data suggested no differences in clinical performance between implants that are placed in an axial position relative to the residual alveolar ridge when compared with implants that are intentionally tilted toward the distal aspect of edentulous jaws.
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
    Group 5 ITI Consensus Report: Implant placement and loading protocols
    (Wiley, 2023-09) Morton, Dean; Wismeijer, Daniel; Chen, Stephen; Hamilton, Adam; Wittneben, Julia; Casentini, Paolo; Gonzaga, Luiz; Lazarin, Rafael; Martin, William; Molinero-Mourelle, Pedro; Obermailer, Barbara; Polido, Waldemar D.; Tahmaseb, Ali; Thoma, Daniel; Zembic, Anja; Prosthodontics, School of Dentistry
    Objectives Working Group 5 was convened to discuss and find consensus on the topics of implant placement and loading protocols associated with single missing teeth in the anterior maxilla (aesthetic zone). Consensus statements, clinical recommendations, patient perspectives and future research suggestions were developed and presented to the plenary for discussion and approval. Materials and Methods Two systematic reviews were developed and submitted prior to the conference. The group considered in detail the systematic reviews and developed statements, clinical recommendations, patient perspectives and future research suggestions based on the findings of the reviews and experience of group members. Definitive versions were developed after presentation to and discussion by the plenary. Results Five consensus statements were developed and approved from each systematic review. Twelve clinical recommendations were developed by the group based on both reviews and experience. Three patient perspectives were developed, and five suggestions made for future research. Conclusions Based on the findings of the systematic reviews and experience of group members, the Type 1A protocol (immediate placement and immediate loading), when utilized in the anterior maxilla under favorable conditions, is considered predictable and is associated with high survival rates. The procedure is considered clinically viable and is associated with aesthetic outcomes, although surgical, technical, and biological complications can occur.
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
    Validation of the geriatric anxiety inventory in a duloxetine clinical trial for elderly adults with generalized anxiety disorder
    (Cambridge, 2015-09) Ball, Susan G.; Lipsius, Sarah; Escobar, Rodrigo; Department of Psychiatry, IU School of Medicine
    Background: The Generalized Anxiety Inventory (GAI) has been developed for use in the assessment of anxiety symptoms in older adults (≥ 65 years), but previous validation work has not examined the psychometric qualities of the instrument in relation to treatment. The objective of this study was to examine the performance of the GAI for its internal reliability, convergent and divergent validity, and its sensitivity to treatment. Methods: Elderly patients with generalized anxiety disorder (GAD) participated in a 10-week double-blind study of duloxetine treatment for patients with GAD. Anxiety symptoms were assessed with the Hamilton Anxiety Rating Scale (HAMA), the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS) anxiety and depression subscales, and the GAI. Internal reliability of the GAI was assessed with Cronbach's α. Correlations among the HAMA, HADS, and GAI scores were analyzed to determine convergent and divergent validity. Patients were also compared on remission status using recommended cut-off scores for the GAI. Results: Patients with GAD, who were at least 65 years of age, were randomly assigned to double-blind treatment with either duloxetine (N = 151) or placebo (N = 140) for 10 weeks acute therapy. The mean change on the GAI was significantly greater with duloxetine compared with placebo treatment (−8.36 vs. −4.96, respectively, p ≤ 0.001). The GAI demonstrated good internal consistency, good convergent and divergent validity, but suggested cut-off values for caseness with the GAI did not correspond to remission status as measured by the HAMA. Conclusions: Within an elderly patient population with GAD, the GAI demonstrated sound psychometric qualities and sensitivity to change with treatment.