Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Show: 20 | 50 | 100
Results 1 - 2 de 2
Filter
Add more filters










Database
Language
Publication year range
1.
Osteoporos Int ; 28(12): 3289-3300, 2017 Dec.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-28770272

ABSTRACT

Patients with osteoporotic fractures have an increased risk for secondary fractures. However, a rigorous study that assesses the effectiveness of individual osteoporotic drugs in preventing subsequent fractures is lacking. The purpose of this review was to analyze the effectiveness of anti-osteoporotic drugs in preventing secondary fractures. We searched for randomized controlled trials that showed the incidence of secondary fractures while using anti-osteoporotic drugs (bisphosphonates, selective estrogen receptor modulators, parathyroid hormone (PTH), or calcitonin) in MEDLINE, Embase.com , and Cochrane Central Register databases. We estimated risk ratios (RR) and numbers needed to treat (NNT) to prevent secondary fractures. Twenty-six studies met our eligibility criteria. There was a significant reduction in RR (0.38-0.77) after the use of anti-osteoporotic drugs for secondary vertebral fractures. Bisphosphonates and PTH significantly reduced the risk of a secondary non-vertebral fracture (RR 0.59 and 0.64). PTH needed the fewest number of patients to be treated to prevent a secondary vertebral fracture (NNT: 56). Our study demonstrated the effectiveness of anti-osteoporotic agents included in our systematic review in preventing secondary vertebral fractures. Bisphosphonates and PTH were most effective in preventing non-vertebral fractures. We suggest that clinicians should prescribe these drugs to prevent secondary vertebral/non-vertebral fractures.


Subject(s)
Bone Density Conservation Agents/therapeutic use , Osteoporosis/drug therapy , Osteoporotic Fractures/prevention & control , Diphosphonates/therapeutic use , Humans , Osteoporosis/complications , Secondary Prevention/methods , Spinal Fractures/etiology , Spinal Fractures/prevention & control
2.
J Dent Res ; 92(12 Suppl): 131S-8S, 2013 Dec.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-24158331

ABSTRACT

This review aimed at evaluating the effectiveness of reconstructive procedures for treating peri-implantitis. Searches of electronic databases and cross-referencing were performed for human comparative clinical trials with ≥ 10 implants for ≥ 12 months of follow-up, reporting radiographic defect fill and at least one of the following parameters: probing depth reduction, clinical attachment level gain, bleeding on probing reduction, and mucosal recession. The searches retrieved 430 citations. Only 1 randomized controlled trial was identified, which compared reconstructive therapy and open flap debridement. Case series studies were also included to evaluate the overall performance of the reconstructive procedures. Twelve studies were finally included. Meta-analysis revealed that the weighted mean radiographic defect fill was 2.17 mm (95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.46-2.87 mm), probing depth reduction was 2.97 mm (95% CI: 2.38-3.56 mm), clinical attachment level gain was 1.65 mm (95% CI: 1.17-2.13 mm), and bleeding on probing reduction was 45.8% (95% CI: 38.5%-53.3%). Great variability in reparative outcomes was found, attributed to patient factors, defect morphology, and reconstructive agents used. Currently, there is a lack of evidence for supporting additional benefit of reconstructive procedures to the other treatment modalities for managing peri-implantitis.


Subject(s)
Peri-Implantitis/surgery , Plastic Surgery Procedures/methods , Gingival Hemorrhage/surgery , Gingival Recession/surgery , Guided Tissue Regeneration, Periodontal/methods , Humans , Periodontal Attachment Loss/surgery , Periodontal Pocket/surgery
SELECTION OF CITATIONS
SEARCH DETAIL
...