RESUMO
OBJECTIVE: This study was designed to compare discomfort/pain after periodontal and peri-implant probing in patients with titanium compared with zirconium implants. METHODS: One examiner recruited and examined 70 patients, each of whom had a dental implant with a contralateral tooth; 37 patients had titanium implants of various types and 33 patients had zirconium implants; one implant was analyzed for each patient. Periodontal and peri-implant probing pocket depth (PPD) and clinical attachment level (CAL) were assessed. Immediately after probing, patients rated their discomfort/pain with a visual analog scale (VAS). The emergence profiles of implant crowns were assessed on periapical radiographs of the implants. RESULTS: Seventy patients with a median age of 55 years (interquartile range [IQR]: 42-65 years), including 43 females and 16 current smokers, were examined. The mean PPD and bleeding on probing (BOP) were higher around implants than around teeth (p < .001). CAL and suppuration were well-balanced between implants and teeth. Peri-implant probing caused significantly more discomfort/pain than periodontal probing [median VAS score: 12.5 (IQR 4-22) vs. 9 (2-15); p < .001]. Logistic regression revealed that discomfort/pain after peri-implant probing was less intense in patients who had taken analgesic medication (p = .021) and around titanium implants (p = .037). CONCLUSIONS: Peri-implant probing caused significantly more discomfort/pain than periodontal probing. Patients who had taken analgesic medication experienced less discomfort and pain with peri-implant probing than those who had not; furthermore, titanium implants were associated with less pain than zirconium implants.
RESUMO
BACKGROUND: During the last decade, numerous therapeutic regimes were assessed to improve the outcome of patients with esophageal carcinoma. We analyzed the impact of therapy alterations, including the establishment of a standardized clinical pathway and the introduction of an interdisciplinary tumor conference on the outcome of patients undergoing esophagectomy because of esophageal cancer. METHODS: Three hundred one patients were included (204 adenocarcinoma and 97 squamous cell carcinoma) who underwent an esophagectomy between 2006 and 2015. Patients were divided into 3 groups: interval A (2006-2008), interval B (2009-2011) and interval C (2012-2015) and evaluated separately focusing on therapy management and patients' outcome. RESULTS: Over the time periods, the incidence of tumor entity of adenocarcinoma increased from 61% to 76.2% (P=0.059). Patients with an initial tumor stage uT1 increased significantly from 4% to 15.9% over the intervals (P=0.002), while positive nodal involvement remained comparable (P=0.237). Patients in the later interval suffered from greater physical impairments preoperatively, represented by a significantly increased American Society Anesthesiologists (ASA) score (P=0.023) and a reduced Karnofsky Index (P<0.001). The tumor conference was accompanied by an increasing implementation of neoadjuvant therapy (27.1% vs. 42.2%, P=0.097). After establishing the clinical pathway 30-day mortality decreased (P=0.67). Grad III anastomotic leakage decreased significantly from 6.5% to 2% (P=0.01). However, gastrointestinal (P=0.007), pulmonary complications (P<0.001) including pneumonia (P<0.001) increased. Over the past ten years both overall survival and relapse-free survival prolonged (P=0.056 and P=0.063, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: Patients' collective suffering from esophageal cancer has changed over the last decade. Continuous further developments of the therapy regimes are needed to meet the requirements of reducing perioperative mortality and extending survival time.
