ABSTRACT
Abstract Background: Efficacy of preoxygenation depends upon inspired oxygen concentration, its flow rate, breathing system configuration and patient characteristics. We hypothesized that in actual clinical scenario, where breathing circuit is not primed with 100% oxygen, patients may need more time to achieve EtO2 ≥ 90%, and this duration may be different among various breathing systems. We thus studied the efficacy of preoxygenation using unprimed Mapleson A, Bain's and Circle system with tidal volume breathing at oxygen flow rates of 5 L.min−1 and 10 L.min−1. Methods: Patients were randomly allocated into one of the six groups, wherein they were preoxygenated using either Mapleson A, Bain's or Circle system at O2 flow rate of either 5 L.min−1 or 10 L.min−1. The primary outcome measure of our study was the time taken to achieve EtO2 ≥ 90% at 5 and 10 L.min−1 flow rates. Results: At oxygen flow rate of 5 L.min−1, time to reach EtO2 ≥ 90% was significantly longer with Bain's system (3.7 ± 0.67 min) than Mapleson A and Circle system (2.9 ± 0.6, 3.3 ± 0.97 min, respectively). However at oxygen flow rate of 10 L.min−1 this time was significantly shorter and comparable among all the three breathing systems (2.33 ± 0.38 min with Mapleson, 2.59 ± 0.50 min with Bain's and 2.60 ± 0.47 min with Circle system). Conclusions: With spontaneous normal tidal volume breathing at oxygen flow rate of 5 L.min−1, Mapleson A can optimally preoxygenate patients within 3 min while Bain's and Circle system require more time. However at O2 flow rate of 10 L.min−1 all the three breathing systems are capable of optimally preoxygenating the patients in less than 3 min.
Resumo Justificativa: A eficácia da pré-oxigenação depende da concentração inspirada de oxigênio, do fluxo de gases, da configuração do circuito respiratório e das características do paciente. Nossa hipótese foi que, no cenário clínico real, no qual o circuito respiratório não é preparado com 100% de oxigênio, os pacientes podem precisar de mais tempo para atingir EtO2 ≥ 90% e essa duração pode ser diferente entre vários circuitos de respiração. Avaliamos, portanto, a eficácia da pré-oxigenação com o uso dos circuitos não preparados Mapleson A, Bain e Circular com volume corrente de respiração com um fluxo de oxigênio de 5 L.min−1 e 10 L.min−1. Métodos: Os pacientes foram alocados aleatoriamente em um dos seis grupos, nos quais foram pré-oxigenados com o uso do circuito Mapleson A, Bain ou Circular com um fluxo de O2 de 5 L.min−1 ou 10 L.min−1. O desfecho primário de nosso estudo foi o tempo necessário para atingir EtO2 ≥ 90% com um fluxo de 5 e 10 L.min−1. Resultados: Com um fluxo de oxigênio de 5 L.min−1, o tempo para atingir EtO2 ≥ 90% foi significativamente maior com o circuito Bain (3,7 ± 0,67 min) do que com os circuitos Mapleson A e Circular (2,9 ± 0,6 e 3,3 ± 0,97 min, respectivamente). No entanto, com o fluxo de oxigênio de 10 L.min−1 foi significativamente menor e comparável entre os três circuitos respiratórios (2,33 ± 0,38 min com Mapleson; 2,59 ± 0,50 min com Bain e 2,60 ± 0,47 min com o Circular). Conclusões: Durante respiração espontânea com volume corrente normal e com um fluxo de oxigênio de 5 L.min−1, o sistema Mapleson A pode pré-oxigenar o paciente de forma ideal dentro de três minutos, enquanto os sistemas Bain e Circular requerem mais tempo. Porém, com um fluxo de O2 de 10 L.min−1, todos os três circuitos respiratórios podem pré-oxigenar o paciente de forma ideal em menos de três minutos.
Subject(s)
Humans , Male , Female , Adult , Oxygen/administration & dosage , Respiration , Anesthesia/methods , Time Factors , Tidal Volume , Prospective Studies , Treatment OutcomeABSTRACT
Background: A critical step in periodontal regenerative therapy is to alter the periodontitis affected root surface to make it a hospitable substrate, to support and encourage migration, attachment, proliferation and proper phenotypic expression of periodontal connective tissue progenitor cells. So the Concept of Biochemical modification or alteration of the root surface has emerged as a potential therapeutic approach to the reconstruction of the periodontal unit. Aim: To review various agents used for root biomodification and update on the current status of root biomodification in periodontal regenerative therapy. Materials and Methods: Google Scholar database is searched using keyword “Root Biomodfication”and the studies with experimental design either In Vivo or In vitro were included in the search whereas Narrative reviews or Non – Systematic reviews were excluded. These studies were reviewed together to update the various agents used for root biomodification and their current status in Periodontal regenerative therapy. Result: Only the representative studies of the agents used were included in this studies including 2 systematic review, 1 literature review and 1 world workshop report. Conclusion: The present status suggests that root biomodification does not have any added advantage in periodontal regeneration. Large Size randomized clinical trials are necessary to give an definite conclusion.