A Systematic Review of Recall Regimen and Maintenance Regimen of Patients with Dental Restorations. Part 2: Implant-Borne Restorations

Purpose To evaluate the current scientific evidence on patient recall and maintenance of implant-supported restorations, to standardize patient care regimens and improve maintenance of oral health. An additional purpose was to examine areas of deficiency in the current scientific literature and provide recommendations for future studies. Materials and Methods An electronic search for articles in the English language literature from the past 10 years was performed independently by multiple investigators using a systematic search process. After application of predetermined inclusion and exclusion criteria, the final list of articles was reviewed to meet the objectives of this review. Results The initial electronic search resulted in 2816 titles. The systematic application of inclusion and exclusion criteria resulted in 14 articles that satisfied the study objectives. An additional 6 articles were added through a supplemental search process for a total of 20 studies. Of these, 11 were randomized controlled clinical trials, and 9 were observational studies. The majority of the studies (15 out of 20) were conducted in the past 5 years and most studies were conducted in Europe (15), followed by Asia (2), South America (1), the United States (1), and the Middle East (1). Results from the qualitative data on a combined 1088 patients indicated that outcome improvements in recall and maintenance regimen were related to (1) patient/treatment characteristic (type of prosthesis, type of prosthetic components, and type of restorative materials); (2) specific oral topical agents or oral hygiene aids (electric toothbrush, interdental brush, chlorhexidine, triclosan, water flossers) and (3) professional intervention (oral hygiene maintenance, and maintenance of the prosthesis). Conclusions There is minimal evidence related to recall regimens in patients with implant-borne removable and fixed restorations; however, a considerable body of evidence indicates that patients with implant-borne removable and fixed restorations require lifelong professional recall regimens to provide biological and mechanical maintenance, customized for each patient. Current evidence also demonstrates that the use of specific oral topical agents and oral hygiene aids can improve professional and at-home maintenance of implant-borne restorations. There is evidence to demonstrate differences in mechanical and biological maintenance needs due to differences in prosthetic materials and designs. Deficiencies in existing evidence compel the forethought of creating clinical practice guidelines for recall and maintenance of patients with implant-borne dental restorations

Clinical Practice Guidelines for Recall and Maintenance of Patients with Tooth-Borne and Implant-Borne Dental Restorations

Purpose To provide guidelines for patient recall regimen, professional maintenance regimen, and at-home maintenance regimen for patients with tooth-borne and implant-borne removable and fixed restorations. Materials and Methods The American College of Prosthodontists (ACP) convened a scientific panel of experts appointed by the ACP, American Dental Association (ADA), Academy of General Dentistry (AGD), and American Dental Hygienists Association (ADHA) who critically evaluated and debated recently published findings from two systematic reviews on this topic. The major outcomes and consequences considered during formulation of the clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) were risk for failure of tooth- and implant-borne restorations. The panel conducted a round table discussion of the proposed guidelines, which were debated in detail. Feedback was used to supplement and refine the proposed guidelines, and consensus was attained. Results A set of CPGs was developed for tooth-borne restorations and implant-borne restorations. Each CPG comprised (1) patient recall, (2) professional maintenance, and (3) at-home maintenance. For tooth-borne restorations, the professional maintenance and at-home maintenance CPGs were subdivided for removable and fixed restorations. For implant-borne restorations, the professional maintenance CPGs were subdivided for removable and fixed restorations and further divided into biological maintenance and mechanical maintenance for each type of restoration. The at-home maintenance CPGs were subdivided for removable and fixed restorations. Conclusions The clinical practice guidelines presented in this document were initially developed using the two systematic reviews. Additional guidelines were developed using expert opinion and consensus, which included discussion of the best clinical practices, clinical feasibility, and risk-benefit ratio to the patient. To the authors’ knowledge, these are the first CPGs addressing patient recall regimen, professional maintenance regimen, and at-home maintenance regimen for patients with tooth-borne and implant-borne restorations. This document serves as a baseline with the expectation of future modifications when additional evidence becomes available

Abnormal ECG Findings in Athletes: Clinical Evaluation and Considerations.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Pre-participation cardiovascular evaluation with electrocardiography is normal practice for most sporting bodies. Awareness about sudden cardiac death in athletes and recognizing how screening can help identify vulnerable athletes have empowered different sporting disciplines to invest in the wellbeing of their athletes. RECENT FINDINGS: Discerning physiological electrical alterations due to athletic training from those representing cardiac pathology may be challenging. The mode of investigation of affected athletes is dependent on the electrical anomaly and the disease(s) in question. This review will highlight specific pathological ECG patterns that warrant assessment and surveillance, together with an in-depth review of the recommended algorithm for evaluation

Initial Independent Outcomes from Focal Impulse and Rotor Modulation Ablation for Atrial Fibrillation: Multicenter FIRM Registry

Introduction The success of pulmonary vein isolation (PVI) for atrial fibrillation (AF) may be improved if stable AF sources identified by Focal Impulse and Rotor Mapping (FIRM) are also eliminated. The long-term results of this approach are unclear outside the centers where FIRM was developed; thus, we assessed outcomes of FIRM-guided AF ablation in the first cases at 10 experienced centers. Methods We prospectively enrolled n = 78 consecutive patients (61 ± 10 years) undergoing FIRM guided ablation for persistent (n = 48), longstanding persistent (n = 7), or paroxysmal (n = 23) AF. AF recordings from both atria with a 64-pole basket catheter were analyzed using a novel mapping system (Rhythm View™; Topera Inc., CA, USA). Identified rotors/focal sources were ablated, followed by PVI. Results Each institution recruited a median of 6 patients, each of whom showed 2.3 ± 0.9 AF rotors/focal sources in diverse locations. 25.3% of all sources were right atrial (RA), and 50.0% of patients had ≥1 RA source. Ablation of all sources required a total of 16.6 ± 11.7 minutes, followed by PVI. On >1 year follow-up with a 3-month blanking period, 1 patient lost to follow-up (median time to 1st recurrence: 245 days, IQR 145–354), single-procedure freedom from AF was 87.5% (patients without prior ablation; 35/40) and 80.5% (all patients; 62/77) and similar for persistent and paroxysmal AF (P = 0.89). Conclusions Elimination of patient-specific AF rotors/focal sources produced freedom-from-AF of ≈80% at 1 year at centers new to FIRM. FIRM-guided ablation has a rapid learning curve, yielding similar results to original FIRM reports in each center’s first cases