| 1. |
- Razavi, H., et al.
(författare)
-
Hepatitis C virus prevalence and level of intervention required to achieve the WHO targets for elimination in the European Union by 2030: a modelling study
- 2017
-
Ingår i: Lancet Gastroenterology & Hepatology. - : Elsevier BV. - 2468-1253. ; 2:5, s. 325-336
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Background Hepatitis C virus (HCV) is a leading cause of liver-related morbidity and mortality worldwide. In the European Union (EU), treatment and cure of HCV with direct-acting antiviral therapies began in 2014. WHO targets are to achieve a 65% reduction in liver-related deaths, a 90% reduction of new viral hepatitis infections, and 90% of patients with viral hepatitis infections being diagnosed by 2030. This study assessed the prevalence of HCV in the EU and the level of intervention required to achieve WHO targets for HCV elimination. Methods We populated country Markov models for the 28 EU countries through a literature search of PubMed and Embase between Jan 1, 2000, and March 31, 2016, and a Delphi process to gain expert consensus and validate inputs. We aggregated country models to create a regional EU model. We used the EU model to forecast HCV disease progression (considering the effect of immigration) and developed a strategy to acehive WHO targets. We used weighted average sustained viral response rates and fibrosis restrictions to model the effect of current therapeutic guidelines. We used the EU model to forecast HCV disease progression (considering the effect of immigration) under current screening and therapeutic guidelines. Additionally, we back-calculated the total number of patients needing to be screened and treated to achieve WHO targets. Findings We estimated the number of viraemic HCV infections in 2015 to be 3 238 000 (95% uncertainty interval [UI] 2 106 000-3 795 000) of a total population of 509 868 000 in the EU, equating to a prevalence of viraemic HCV of 0.64% (95% UI 0.41-0.74). We estimated that 1 180 000 (95% UI 1 003 000-1 357 000) people were diagnosed with viraemia (36.4%), 150 000 (12 000-180 000) were treated (4.6% of the total infected population or 12.7% of the diagnosed population), 133 000 (106 000-160 000) were cured (4.1%), and 57 900 (43 900-67 300) were newly infected (1.8%) in 2015. Additionally, 30 400 (26 600-42 500) HCV-positive immigrants entered the EU. To achieve WHO targets, unrestricted treatment needs to increase from 150 000 patients in 2015 to 187 000 patients in 2025 and diagnosis needs to increase from 88 800 new cases annually in 2015 to 180 000 in 2025. Interpretation Given its advanced health-care infrastructure, the EU is uniquely poised to eliminate HCV; however, expansion of screening programmes is essential to increase treatment to achieve the WHO targets. A united effort, grounded in sound epidemiological evidence, will also be necessary.
|
|
| 2. |
|
|
| 3. |
|
|
| 4. |
- Le Roch, Sarah, et al.
(författare)
-
European survey on criteria of aesthetics for periodontal evaluation: The ESCAPE study
- 2019
-
Ingår i: Journal of Clinical Periodontology. - : Wiley. - 0303-6979 .- 1600-051X. ; 46:11, s. 1116-1123
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- © 2019 John Wiley & Sons A/S. Published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd Objective: The ESCAPE multicentre survey was designed to (a) compare the agreement of three relevant aesthetic scoring systems among different centres, and (b) evaluate the reproducibility of each question of the questionnaires. Materials and Methods: EFP centres (n=14) were involved in an e-survey. Forty-two participants (28 teachers, 14 postgraduate students) were asked to score the one-year aesthetic outcomes of photographs using the Before–After Scoring System (BASS), the Pink Esthetic Score (PES) and the Root coverage Esthetic Score (RES). Mean values of kappa statistics performed on each question were provided to resume global agreement of each method. Results: Between teachers, a difference of kappa≥0.41 (p=.01) was found for BASS (75%) and PES (57%). Similarly, RES (84%) and PES (57%) were different (p<.001). No difference was found between BASS (75%) and RES (84%). No difference was found between students, whatever the scoring system. Questions of each scoring system showed differences in their reproducibility. Conclusions: The outcomes of this study indicate that BASS and RES scoring systems are reproducible tools to evaluate aesthetic after root coverage therapies between different centres. Among the various variables, lack of scar, degree of root coverage, colour match and gingival margin that follows the CEJ show the best reliability.
|
|
| 5. |
- Esposito, Marco, 1965, et al.
(författare)
-
Dental implants with internal versus external connections: 1-year post-loading results from a pragmatic multicenter randomised controlled trial
- 2015
-
Ingår i: European Journal of Oral Implantology. - 1756-2406. ; 8:4, s. 331-344
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Purpose: To evaluate advantages and disadvantages of identical implants with internal or external connections. Materials and methods: Two hundred patients with any type of edentulism (single tooth, partial and total edentulism) requiring one implant-supported prosthesis were randomly allocated in two equal groups to receive either implants with an external connection (EC) or implants of the same type but with an internal connection (IC) (EZ Plus, Mega Gen Implant, Gyeongbuk, South Korea) at seven centres. Due to slight differences in implant design/components, IC implants were platform switched while EC were not. Patients were followed for 1 year after initial loading. Outcome measures were prosthesis/implant failures, any complication, marginal bone level changes and clinician preference assessed by blinded outcome assessors. Results: One hundred and two patients received '173 EC implants and 98 patients received 154 IC implants. Six patients dropped out with 11 EC implants and 3 patients with four IC implants, but all remaining patients were followed up to 1-year post-loading. Two centres did not provide any periapical radiographs. Two prostheses supported by EC implants and one supported by IC implants failed (P = 1.000, difference = -0.01, 95% CI: -0.05 to 0.04). Three EC implants failed in 3 patients versus two IC implants in 1 patient (P = 0.6227, difference = -0.02, 95% CI: -0.07 to 0.03). EC implants were affected by nine complications in 9 patients versus six complications of IC implants in 6 patients (P = 0.5988, difference = -0.02, 95% CI: -0.10 to 0.06). There were no statistically significant differences for prosthesis/implant failures and complications between the implant systems. One year after loading, there were no statistically significant differences in marginal bone level changes between the two groups (difference = 0.24, 95% CI: -0.01 to 0.50, P =0.0629) and both groups lost bone from implant placement in a statistically significant manner: 0.98 mm for the EC implants and 0.85 mm for the IC implants. Five operators had no preference and two preferred IC implants. Conclusions: Within the limitations given by the difference in neck design and platform switching between EC and IC implants, preliminary short-term data (1-year post-loading) did not show any statistically significant differences between the two connection types, therefore clinicians could choose whichever one they preferred.
|
|
| 6. |
|
|
| 7. |
|
|
| 8. |
- Cannizzaro, G., et al.
(författare)
-
Immediate loading of fixed cross-arch prostheses supported by flapless-placed supershort or long implants: 1-year results from a randomised controlled trial
- 2015
-
Ingår i: European Journal of Oral Implantology. - 1756-2406. ; 8:1, s. 27-36
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Purpose: To compare the outcome of cross-arch prostheses supported either by supershort (5 mm) or long (11.5 mm) implants, placed flapless and immediately restored with metal-resin screw-retained cross-arch prostheses. Materials and methods: Thirty patients with edentulous (or to be rendered edentulous) mandibles and 30 with edentulous maxillas, who had sufficient bone to allow the placement of four and six implants respectively, which were at least 11.5 mm-long, were randomised according to a parallel group design into 2 equal groups, where they received either 5 mm or 11.5 mm-long implants at one centre. Implants with a diameter of 5 mm, were to be placed flapless with an insertion torque of at least 50 Ncm. Mandibles received four implants between the mental foramina. Implants were to be immediately loaded with metal-resin-definitive prostheses on the same day of implant placement. Patients were followed up to 1 year after loading and the outcome measures were: prosthesis and implant failures, complications, and pen-implant marginal bone level changes. Results: No patients dropped-out. Two prostheses were remade, one on short maxillary implants and one on long mandibular implants. Two 5 mm maxillary implants which did not achieve 50 Ncm torque in soft bone of one patient, but were immediately loaded anyway, failed after 3 weeks compared to one mandibular 11.5 mm-long implant that failed after 60 days. Two complications occurred in each group. There were no statistically significant differences for prosthesis failures, implant failures and complications. Patients with mandibular short implants lost on average 0.08 mm of pen-implant bone at 1 year and patients with long mandibular implants lost 0.51 mm. Patients with short maxillary implants lost on average 0.15 mm of pen-implant bone at 1 year and patients with long maxillary implants lost 0.62 mm. Short implants showed less bone loss when compared to long implants and the differences up to 1 year were statistically significant both in maxillae (mean difference = 0.48 mm, 95% CI 0.22 to 0.73, P = 0.0011) and in mandibles (mean difference = 0.44 mm, 95% CI 0.21 to 0.66, P = 0.0009). Conclusions: Flapless-placed 5 mm-long implants achieved similar results as 11.5 mm-long implants when supporting immediately loaded cross-arch prostheses both in maxillae and mandibles up to 1 year after loading. These preliminary results must be confirmed by other trials, and 5- to 10-year post-loading data is necessary before making reliable recommendations.
|
|
| 9. |
|
|
| 10. |
- Rotundo, R., et al.
(författare)
-
Long-term outcomes of soft tissue augmentation around dental implants on soft and hard tissue stability: A systematic review
- 2015
-
Ingår i: Clinical Oral Implants Research. - : Blackwell Munksgaard. - 0905-7161. ; 26:S11, s. 123-138
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Aim: To investigate whether the height and volume of the soft tissues and peri-implant bone levels around dental implants are stable, when soft tissue augmentation has been performed. Materials and Methods: Three operators conducted a search on electronic databases (MEDLINE, COCHRANE, EMBASE) and a hand searching on the main journals dealing with periodontology and implantology until 30 October 2014. Only articles that considered peri-implant soft tissue augmentation performed in a group of at least 10 patients and with a follow-up of at least 1 year were selected. The outcome variables were peri-implant attached/keratinized tissue width (KTW) changes, peri-implant marginal soft tissue level (PSL) changes, and peri-implant marginal bone level (PBL) changes. The review was performed according to the PRISMA statements. Results: Ten articles were selected for the qualitative synthesis, but only one meta-analysis was accomplished, indicating that 1 year after implant recession coverage procedures, a mean gain of 1.65 ± 0.01 mm (90% CrI [1.44; 1.85]) was observed. Conclusions: There is no long-term evidence whether augmented soft tissues can be maintained over time and able to influence the peri-implant bone levels. © 2015 John Wiley & Sons A/S.
|
|
| 11. |
- Salina, S., et al.
(författare)
-
Subcrestal placement of dental implants with an internal conical connection of 0.5 mm versus 1.5 mm: Three-year after loading results of a multicentre within-person randomised controlled trial
- 2019
-
Ingår i: European Journal of Oral Implantology. - 1756-2406. ; 12:2, s. 155-167
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Purpose: To evaluate whether there are some clinical benefits by placing single dental implants either 0.5 mm or 1.5 mm subcrestally in healed bone crests. Materials and methods: Sixty partially edentulous patients requiring two single implant-supported crowns had both sites randomly allocated either to 0.5-mm or 1.5-mm subcrestal implant placement according to a split-mouth design at six centres and submerged in aesthetic areas or non-submerged in non-aesthetic areas for 3 months. Provisional acrylic crowns were delivered and were replaced after 2 months by definitive metal-ceramic crowns. Patients were followed to 3 years after loading. Outcome measures were: crown and implant failures, complications, aesthetics assessed using the pink aesthetic score (PES), peri-implant marginal bone level changes and patient preference, recorded by blinded assessors. Results: One patient dropped out. One patient lost both implants for infection at impression taking. Seven complications affected seven patients of the 0.5-mm group and four complications affected four patients of the 1.5-mm subcrestal group. Three patients had complications at both implants. There were no statistically significant differences for complications between group (OR = 4; 95% CI: 0.45 to 35.79; P (McNemar test) = 0.375). At delivery of definitive crowns, 2 months after loading, the mean PES was 11.22 +/- 1.91 and 11.12 +/- 1.59 for the 0.5-and 1.5-mm groups, respectively. At 1 year after loading, the mean PES was 12.09 +/- 1.66 and 12.10 +/- 1.52 for the 0.5-and 1.5-mm groups, respectively. At 3 years after loading, the mean PES was 11.99 +/- 1.94 and 12.19 +/- 1.78 for the 0.5- and 1.5-mm groups, respectively. There were no statistically significant differences between the two groups at 2 months (P = 0.626), at 1 year (P = 0.920) or at 3 years (P = 0.296). One year after loading, patients of the 0.5-mm group lost on average 0.21 +/- 0.51 mm and those of the 1.5-mm group 0.11 +/- 0.36 mm, the difference being not statistically significant (difference = 0.10 mm; 95% CI: -0.01 to 0.20; P = 0.078). Three years after loading, patients of the 0.5-mm group lost on average 0.34 +/- 0.87 mm and those of the 1.5-mm group 0.19 +/- 0.54 mm, the difference being statistically significant (difference = 0.15 mm; 95% CI: 0.00 to 0.30; P = 0.046). Patients did not prefer any depth of the implant placement over the other. There were no differences in outcomes between centres. Conclusions: No appreciable clinical differences were noticed when placing implants 0.5 mm or 1.5 mm subcrestally; therefore clinicians can do as they prefer.
|
|
