Browsing by Subject "consensus"

Now showing 1 - 3 of 3
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
    Delphi Project on the trends in Implant Dentistry in the COVID-19 era: Perspectives from Latin America
    (Wiley, 2021) Alarcón, Marco Antonio; Sanz‐Sánchez, Ignacio; Shibli, Jamil Awad; Treviño Santos, Alejandro; Caram, Santiago; Lanis, Alejandro; Jiménez, Paola; Dueñas, Ricardo; Torres, Ronald; Alvarado, Jacinto; Avendaño, Adrián; Galindo, Roberto; Umanzor, Vilma; Shedden, Mónica; Invernizzi, Carlos; Yibrin, Caroll; Collins, James; León, Roberto; Contreras, Luis; Bueno, Luis; López‐Pacheco, Andrea; Málaga‐Figueroa, Lilian; Sanz, Mariano; Prosthodontics, School of Dentistry
    Aim To establish trends in Implant Dentistry in Latin America in the COVID‐19 pandemic. Material and methods A steering committee and an advisory group of experts in Implant Dentistry were selected among eighteen countries. An open‐ended questionnaire by Delphi methodology was validated including 64 questions, divided in 7 topics, concerning the various trends in dental implantology. The survey was conducted in two rounds, which provided the participants in the second round with the results of the first. The questionnaires were completed on August 2020, and the online meeting conference was held on September 2020. The final prediction was developed through consensus by a selected group of experts. Results A total of 197 experts from Latin America answered the first and second questionnaire. In the first round, the established threshold for consensus (65%) was achieved in 30 questions (46.87%). In the second round, performed on average 45 days later, this level was achieved in 47 questions (73.43%). Consensus was completely reached on the item “Diagnostic” (100%), the field with the lowest consensus was “Demand for treatment with dental implants” (37.5%). Conclusions The present study in Latin America has provided relevant and useful information on the predictions in the education and practice of Implant Dentistry in the COVID‐19 era. The consensus points toward a great confidence of clinicians in the biosecurity protocols used to minimize the risk of SARS‐CoV‐2 transmission. It is foreseen as an important change in education, with introduction of virtual reality and other simulation technologies in implant training.
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
    How to intervene in the caries process in adults: proximal and secondary caries? An EFCD-ORCA-DGZ expert Delphi consensus statement
    (Springer, 2020) Schwendicke, Falk; Splieth, Christian H.; Bottenberg, Peter; Breschi, Lorenzo; Campus, Guglielmo; Doméjean, Sophie; Ekstrand, Kim; Giacaman, Rodrigo A.; Haak, Rainer; Hannig, Matthias; Hickel, Reinhard; Juric, Hrvoje; Lussi, Adrian; Machiulskiene, Vita; Manton, David; Jablonski-Momeni, Anahita; Opdam, Niek; Paris, Sebastian; Santamaria, Ruth; Tassery, Hervé; Zandona, Andrea; Zero, Domenick; Zimmer, Stefan; Banerjee, Avijit; Cariology, Operative Dentistry and Dental Public Health, School of Dentistry
    Objectives To provide consensus recommendations on how to intervene in the caries process in adults, specifically proximal and secondary carious lesions. Methods Based on two systematic reviews, a consensus conference and followed by an e-Delphi consensus process were held with EFCD/ORCA/DGZ delegates. Results Managing an individual’s caries risk using non-invasive means (oral hygiene measures including flossing/interdental brushes, fluoride application) is recommended, as both proximal and secondary carious lesions may be prevented or their activity reduced. For proximal lesions, only cavitated lesions (confirmed by visual-tactile, or radiographically extending into the middle/inner dentine third) should be treated invasively/restoratively. Non-cavitated lesions may be successfully arrested using non-invasive measures in low-risk individuals or if radiographically confined to the enamel. In high-risk individuals or if radiographically extended into dentine, for these lesions, additional micro-invasive (lesion sealing and infiltration) treatment should be considered. For restoring proximal lesions, adhesive direct restorations allow minimally invasive, tooth-preserving preparations. Amalgams come with a lower risk of secondary lesions and may be preferable in more clinically complex scenarios, dependent on specific national guidelines. In structurally compromised (especially endodontically treated) teeth, indirect cuspal coverage restorations may be indicated. Detection methods for secondary lesions should be tailored according to the individual’s caries risk. Avoiding false positive detection and over-treatment is a priority. Bitewing radiographs should be combined with visual-tactile assessment to confirm secondary caries detections. Review/refurbishing/resealing/repairing instead of replacing partially defective restorations should be considered for managing secondary caries, if possible. Conclusions An individualized and lesion-specific approach is recommended for intervening in the caries process in adults.
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
    National Institutes of Health Consensus Development Project on Criteria for Clinical Trials in Chronic Graft-Versus-Host Disease: III. The 2014 Biomarker Working Group Report
    (Elsevier B.V., 2015-05) Paczesny, Sophie; Hakim, Frances T.; Pidala, Joseph; Cooke, Kenneth; Lathrop, Julia; Griffith, Linda M.; Hansen, John; Jagasia, Madan; Miklos, David; Pavletic, Steven; Parkman, Robertson; Russek-Cohen, Estelle; Flowers, Mary E.D.; Lee, Stephanie; Martin, Paul; Vogelsang, Georgia; Walton, Marc; Schultz, Kirk R.; Department of Pediatrics, IU School of Medicine
    Biology-based markers to confirm or aid in the diagnosis or prognosis of chronic GVHD after allogeneic hematopoietic cell transplantation (HCT) or monitor its progression are critically needed to facilitate evaluation of new therapies. Biomarkers have been defined as any characteristic that is objectively measured and evaluated as an indicator of a normal biological or pathogenic process, a pharmacologic response to a therapeutic intervention. Applications of biomarkers in chronic GVHD clinical trials or patient management include: a) diagnosis and assessment of chronic GVHD disease activity, including distinguishing irreversible damage from continued disease activity, b) prognostic risk to develop chronic GVHD, and c) prediction of response to therapy. Sample collection for chronic GVHD biomarkers studies should be well-documented following established quality control guidelines for sample acquisition, processing, preservation and testing, at intervals that are both calendar- and event-driven. The consistent therapeutic treatment of subjects and standardized documentation needed to support biomarker studies are most likely to be provided in prospective clinical trials. To date, no chronic GVHD biomarkers have been qualified for utilization in clinical applications. Since our previous chronic GVHD Biomarkers Working Group report in 2005, an increasing number of chronic GVHD candidate biomarkers are available for further investigation. This paper provides a four-part framework for biomarker investigations: identification, verification, qualification, and application with terminology based on Food and Drug Administration and European Medicines Agency guidelines.