In-office bleaching with complete cervical third protection protocol: A split-mouth, double-blind, randomized clinical trial.

PURPOSE: To evaluate the bleaching sensitivity and the bleaching effectiveness of in-office bleaching, following a protocol of complete cervical third protection with gingival dam in comparison with a traditional manner of applying gingival dam (used only in the gingival sulcus area). METHODS: 35 participants were selected for this double-blind split-mouth randomized clinical trial. The control group received the gingival barrier in the traditional manner, and in the experimental group the barrier was extended by about 3 mm to include the cervical region. The bleaching agent was applied in two sessions. The risk and intensity of bleaching sensitivity were assessed using two scales. The bleaching effectiveness was evaluated with a digital spectrophotometer with the tip placed in the cervical area. The absolute risk of bleaching sensitivity was compared by the McNemar's test and bleaching effectiveness (ΔEab, ΔE00 and ΔWi) and intensity of bleaching sensitivity was evaluated by Wilcoxon-paired test (α= 0.05). RESULTS: No significant difference at risk (P= 1.0) and intensity of bleaching sensitivity (P> 0.45) was seen between groups. After 30 days, bleaching effectiveness had no statistical difference between the groups (P> 0.09). CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE: Extending the barrier in the cervical region of teeth did not reduce the risk and intensity of bleaching sensitivity, nor jeopardize the bleaching effectiveness.

Acute renal and splenic infarctions: a review.

BACKGROUND: Renal and splenic infarctions are close entities, with few data concerning their clinical, biological and radiological features. AIM: The aim of this study was to compare the clinical presentations, etiologies and outcomes of acute renal infarctions (RI) and splenic infarctions (SI). DESIGN: A retrospective multicentric cohort study included patients of the 6 university hospitals in Lyon with RI, SI, or associated RI-SI infarctions was conducted. METHODS: All consecutive cases diagnosed by CT imaging, between January 2013 and October 2016, were included. The exclusion criteria were causes of infarction that did not require additional investigations. RESULTS: A total of 161 patients were selected for analysis: 34 patients with RI, 104 patients with SI and 23 patients with both RI-SI. Mean ± SD age of patients was 63.2 ± 16.6 years; 59.6% were male. Only 5/161 (3.1%) were healthy prior to the event. The main symptoms were diffuse abdominal pain (26.4%), followed by nausea/vomiting (18.3%) and fever (16.4%).The causes of RI or SI varied significantly within the three groups. Hypercoagulable state was associated with SI, and embolic disease and arterial injury were associated with RI. Extensive (i.e.>2/3 of organ volume) (OR 6.22, 95%CI 2.0119.22) and bilateral infarctions (OR 15.05, 95%CI 1.79-126.78) were significantly associated with hemodynamic shocks. The survival at 1 month follow-up did not significantly differ between the three groups. CONCLUSION: Acute RI and SI are heterogenous entities in regards to their clinical presentation, etiology, associated venous or arterial thrombosis, but prognoses were not different at short term follow-up.