Home About us Contact
|
Home About us Contact | ||
|
|
||
Implant Techniques (implant + techniques)
Selected AbstractsSoft tissue augmentation 2006: filler fantasyDERMATOLOGIC THERAPY, Issue 3 2006Arnold William Klein ABSTRACT:, As an increasing number of patients seek esthetic improvement through minimally invasive procedures, interest in soft tissue augmentation and filling agents is at an all-time high. One reason for this interest is the availability of botulinum toxin type A, which works superbly in the upper face. The rejuvenation of the upper face has created much interest in injectable filling agents and implant techniques that work equally well in the restoration of the lower face. One of the central tenets of soft tissue augmentation is the concept of the three-dimensional face. The youthful face has a soft, full appearance, as opposed to the flat, pulled, two-dimensional look often achieved by more traditional surgical approaches. Injectable filling agents can augment and even at times, replace pulling. Additionally, with the lip as the focal center of the lower face, subtle lip enhancement is here to stay, and is in fact, the number one indication for injectable fillers. Moreover, minimally invasive soft tissue augmentation offers cosmetic enhancement without the cost and recovery time associated with more invasive procedures. As more and more physicians take interest in minimally invasive surgery, courses in cosmetic surgery techniques are becoming increasingly popular at the medical meetings of many specialties. Today, physicians have a much larger armamentarium of techniques and materials with which to improve facial contours, ameliorate wrinkles, and provide esthetic rejuvenation to the face. For a substance or device to be amenable for soft tissue augmentation in the medical community, it must meet certain criteria. It must have both a high "use" potential, producing cosmetically pleasing results with a minimum undesirable reactions, and have a low abuse potential in that widespread or incorrect or indiscriminate use would not result in significant morbidity. It must be nonteratogenic, noncarcinogenic, and nonmigratory. In addition, the agent must provide predictable, persistent correction through reproducible implantation techniques. Finally, the substance, agent or device must be approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, which assures purity, safety, and accessibility, as well as much-needed information regarding use. Having a thorough understanding of the filling agents available, their indications and contraindications, as well as having thorough knowledge of implant technique are vital in providing the patient with an esthetically pleasing result. [source] Experience with Implantable Cardioverter-Defibrillator Therapy in Grown-Ups with Congenital Heart DiseasePACING AND CLINICAL ELECTROPHYSIOLOGY, Issue 2008MAREN TOMASKE M.D. Implantable cardioverter-defibrillators (ICD) are increasingly implanted for primary or secondary prevention of sudden death in young patients with congenital heart disease, cardiomyopathies, or channelopathies. Although major advances in ICD technology and implant techniques have facilitated ICD therapy in young patients, complications such as lead failures, inappropriate shocks, system infections, and negative psychosocial impacts are of concern. The various underlying cardiovascular disease states and a lack of standardized ICD protocols for young patients often necessitate individualized implant techniques, ICD programming, and follow-up. Young ICD patients need a thorough follow-up to ensure adequate therapy, and psychosocial problems have to be addressed. [source] (634) Reliability and Clinical Utility of an Implanted Intraspinal Catheter Used in the Treatment of Spasticity and PainPAIN MEDICINE, Issue 2 2000Article first published online: 25 DEC 200 Authors: Elliot Krames, Pacific Pain Treatment Center; Iva Chapple, Carolina Pain Center Objectives: To examine the performance and reliability of a redesigned implantable intrathecal catheter. Materials: A total of 212 catheters were implanted in 202 patients in this 22-center, prospective study of an implantable catheter/pump system used to deliver intrathecal drugs for the treatment of pain and spasticity. Along with physician assessments of each use, the rates of common catheter complications (dislodgements, disconnections, fractures, and kinks) experienced during the study were analyzed in relation to implant conditions (catheter entry site, tip position, and anchoring method). Results: A cumulative study of 3112.8 months of patient experience (average: 15.4 months; range: 0 to 30.2 months per catheter) revealed an overall catheter-caused complication rate of 0.3% per patient month. Physician assessments were favorable, with 89% rating this catheter as better than previously used intraspinal catheters. A measure of catheter survival estimates (Kaplan-Meier) at 9 months was 89% including all complications. Comparison of data relating to implant techniques demonstrated a variety of catheter implant techniques (entry, positioning, anchoring) with no correlation between any one technique and the common complications. Conclusions: Performance data and physician assessments indicate that this catheter is an improvement over the previously available catheter. [source] A comparison of two implant techniques on patient-based outcome measures: a report of flapless vs. conventional flapped implant placementCLINICAL ORAL IMPLANTS RESEARCH, Issue 4 2010Jerome A. Lindeboom Abstract Background: Flapless implant surgery is considered to offer advantages over the traditional flap access approach. There may be minimized bleeding, decreased surgical times and minimal patient discomfort. Controlled studies comparing patient outcome variables to support these assumptions, however, are lacking. Aim: The objective of this clinical study was to compare patient outcome variables using flapless and flapped implant surgical techniques. Patients and methods: From January 2008 to October 2008, 16 consecutive patients with edentulous maxillas were included in the study. Patients were randomly allocated to either implant placement with a flapless procedure (eight patients, mean age 54.6±2.9 years) or surgery with a conventional flap procedure (eight patients, mean age 58.7±7.2 years). All implants were placed using a Nobel guide® CT-guided surgical template. Outcome measures were the Dutch version of the Impact of Event Scale-Revised (IES-R), dental anxiety using the s-DAI and oral health-related quality of life (OHIP-14). Results: Ninety-six implants were successfully placed. All implants were placed as two-phase implants and the after-implant placement dentures were adapted. No differences could be shown between conditions on dental anxiety (s-DAI), emotional impact (IES-R), anxiety, procedure duration or technical difficulty, although the flapless group did score consistently higher. The flap procedure group reported less impact on quality of life and included more patients who reported feeling no pain at all during placement. Conclusions: Differences found in the patient outcome variables do suggest that patients in the flapless implant group had to endure more than patients in the flap group. To cite this article: Lindeboom JA, van Wijk AJ. A comparison of two implant techniques on patient-based outcome measures: a report of flapless vs. conventional flapped implant placement. Clin. Oral Impl. Res. 21, 2010; 366,370. doi: 10.1111/j.1600-0501.2009.01866.x [source] | ||||||||||