Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Show: 20 | 50 | 100
Results 1 - 6 de 6
Filter
Add more filters










Database
Language
Publication year range
1.
Clin Case Rep ; 11(12): e8267, 2023 Dec.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-38033698

ABSTRACT

In this case report we present a very rare case of intramuscular cavernous hemangioma in the temporalis muscle which was successfully managed with surgical excision with no evidence of recurrence in follow-up.

2.
J Craniomaxillofac Surg ; 50(4): 293-297, 2022 Apr.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-35387739

ABSTRACT

SUMMERY: This study aimed to compare the rate of post-surgical infection following single-dose antibiotic prophylaxis with or without post-surgical antibiotics versus post-surgical administration of antibiotics alone. The study consisted of three groups; Group 1 received single-dose antibiotic prophylaxis orally (2 g amoxicillin 1 h before surgery). Group 2 received one dose of prophylactic antibiotic (2 g amoxicillin 1 h before surgery) with additional doses after surgery (500 mg amoxicillin, q8h for 5 days). Group 3 received post-surgical antibiotics alone (500 mg amoxicillin, q8h for 5 days). 450 patients were enrolled. Post-surgical infection was seen in 9 patients of group 1, 11 patients of group 2, and 7 patients of group 3. There was no significant difference in the rate of postoperative infection among the study groups (p value = 0.62). The number of failed implants was 2 in group 2, and 1 in group 3. Subgroup analysis showed no significant difference in infection rates among the three groups regarding concomitant guided bone regeneration. However, there was a significant difference in the rate of post-surgical infection between smokers and non-smokers (p < 0.001). Within the limitations of the study, it seems that a single preoperative dose of antibiotics is sufficient for reducing surgical site infections, adequately and should be preferred after implant placement whenever appropriate.


Subject(s)
Antibiotic Prophylaxis , Dental Implants , Surgical Wound Infection , Amoxicillin/therapeutic use , Anti-Bacterial Agents/therapeutic use , Antibiotic Prophylaxis/methods , Dental Implants/adverse effects , Humans , Surgical Wound Infection/prevention & control
3.
Dent Res J (Isfahan) ; 19: 9, 2022.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-35308444

ABSTRACT

Background: The effect of different intracanal medicaments on root fracture resistance has not been thoroughly investigated in the short and long term. To assess the effect of calcium hydroxide (CH), CH combined with Chlorhexidine (CHX), double antibiotic paste (DAP), and simvastatin as intracanal medicaments on the fracture resistance of the human root. One hundred and twenty single-rooted mandibular premolars which were extracted for periodontal reasons were collected for this in vitro study. Materials and Methods: This was an in vitro study. All teeth were decoronated. Root canals were prepared by the Pro taper system, and %2.5 NaOCl was used for irrigation. The smear layer was removed using %5.25 NaOCl and 17% ethylenediaminetetraacetic acid each for 3 min. The samples were randomly divided into five groups based on the medicament: (1) CH (2) CH + CHX (3) Simvastatin (4) DAP (5) Control group. All specimens in each group were incubated for 1 week (Subgroup A) and 1 month (Subgroup B). Then, medicaments were removed and filled with gutta-percha and AH26 sealer. All samples were tested for fracture resistance. The data were statistically evaluated with the SPSS software 17. ANOVA and Mann-Whitney U and Wilcoxon tests were used for the analysis of the data. P = 0.05 was considered statistically significant. Results: Although CH and CH + CHX increased the fracture resistance in a 1-week period, there was no significant difference between the groups after 1 month. Conclusion: Under the limitations of this study, CH and CH + CHX, DAP and simvastatin do not have a negative effect on root fracture resistance when used as intracanal medicaments for <1 month.

4.
J Dent (Shiraz) ; 22(3): 162-168, 2021 Sep.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-34514062

ABSTRACT

STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM: The efficacy of photodynamic therapy (PDT) in smear layer removal compared to the currently accepted protocol is not well established. PURPOSE: This study aims to evaluate the effect of PDT on smear layer removal from human root canal compared to combined use of irrigation solutions including sodium hypochlorite (NaOCl) and ethylene diamine tetra acetic acid (EDTA) by scanning electron microscopy (SEM). MATERIALS AND METHOD: In this in vitro study, straight roots from 48 extracted human maxillary incisors and canines were selected and decoronated. Instrumentation was completed with RaCe rotary system and normal saline irrigation between files. Then roots were randomly divided into 3 groups (n=16). Group 1 was the control group to confirm smear layer formation. In the group 2, the canals were irrigated with 2ml of 2.5% NaOCl solution for 10 minutes and 2ml of 17% EDTA solution for 1 minute. In the group 3, PDT with methylene blue and diode laser (625nm, 150mW, for 5minutes) was the final procedure for smear layer removal. All the specimens were sectioned into two halves, gold coated, and analyzed under SEM. The smear layer in the coronal, middle, and apical thirds, were evaluated and scored by two examiners independently. Statistical analysis was done using Chi-square test. RESULTS: It was observed that the NaOCl+EDTA removed the smear layer significantly better than PDT in the coronal and apical thirds (p< 0.05) whereas PDT was unable to remove the smear layer in none of the root areas. At the apical thirds, there was no significant difference between NaOCl+EDTA and PDT (p< 0.05). Both procedures were unable to remove smear layer from radicular dentine of this area. CONCLUSION: According to the results of this in vitro study, the use of PDT alone is not recommended to remove smear layer. The combined application of NaOCl and EDTA is ineffective in removing smear layer of apical third, despite its efficacy on the coronal and middle regions.

5.
Dent Res J (Isfahan) ; 18: 102, 2021.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-35265285

ABSTRACT

Ossifying fibromas (OFs) are benign, well-demarcated lesions in the craniofacial region, particularly in the jaws, with clinical, radiographic, and histopathological similarities to other lesions, which make their diagnosis challenging. Herein, we report a case of a fibro-osseous lesion in the anterior maxilla of a 13-year-old boy, consisting of an intraosseous and an extra-osseous part, which created a diagnostic dilemma.

6.
J Clin Pharmacol ; 61(5): 581-590, 2021 May.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-33217030

ABSTRACT

Although people living with human immunodeficiency virus and other comorbidities are expected to experience more grievous consequences with corona virus disease 2019 (COVID-19), recent cohort studies did not indicate this. Antiretrovirals (ARVs) might have a prophylactic role in these patients. The purpose of this study was to review the most recently published articles on the possible role of ARVs for pre- or postexposure prophylaxis against COVID-19. From June to October 2020, we searched scientific databases using specific key words to identify ongoing trials or articles published before October 2020 investigating any subgroups of ARVs for prophylaxis against COVID-19. Apart from molecular docking studies, in vitro, animal, and human studies are very limited for evaluating the prophylactic role of ARVs against severe acute respiratory syndrome-corona virus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection. According to our findings, there is no definite evidence to support use of protease inhibitors for this purpose, despite the promising results of molecular studies and limited clinical evidence for ritonavir-boosted lopinavir, darunavir, and nelfinavir when used early in the course of the disease. Nucleotide/nucleoside reverse-transcriptase inhibitors (NRTI) also have shown binding affinity to main enzymes of SARS-CoV-2 in molecular, in vitro, and animal studies. NRTIs like tenofovir and emtricitabine might exhibit a prophylactic role against SARS-CoV-2 infection. In conclusion, currently there is no evidence to justify the use of ARVs for prophylaxis against COVID-19.


Subject(s)
Anti-Retroviral Agents/therapeutic use , COVID-19 Drug Treatment , Animals , COVID-19/virology , Cohort Studies , Humans , Molecular Docking Simulation , Post-Exposure Prophylaxis , Reverse Transcriptase Inhibitors/therapeutic use , SARS-CoV-2/isolation & purification
SELECTION OF CITATIONS
SEARCH DETAIL
...