RESUMO
We are not yet in the post-scarcity world that John Maynard Keynes famously envisioned, and vaccines have only recently allowed us to hope that a post-COVID-19 future may arrive soon. However, it is not too early to consider the impact of both on the traditional office, and on attempts to bring it back for reasons that may be socially harmful. One lesson of the pandemic is that many workers can be as-or even more-productive working from home, thanks chiefly to software such as Zoom, Microsoft Teams, and Slack, among others, which enable better collaboration across distances than was previously possible. At the turn of the century, we moved toward an economy in which important products were increasingly characterized by low marginal costs of production, such as pharmaceuticals and software. Over the past decade, we have seen fixed costs reduced in some situations-consider how Uber greatly eliminates the need for a central taxi dispatcher, and makes use of idle capital invested in personal vehicles. The traditional office represents a massive fixed cost for many industries; tech-driven work-from-home greatly reduces the need for this fixed cost. While software, Internet connectivity and the cloud are not free, preliminary estimates suggest that replacing traditional offices with work-from-home greatly lowers costs, creates economic efficiencies and, relatedly, reduces environmental harm. That said, the story of work-from-home is not one of unbridled optimism. Real estate firms and local governments are already trying to use law as a tool to return workers to the pre-pandemic traditional office. Various levels of government seek to return workers to physical offices, often motivated by declines in tax receipts. Attempts to bolster a return to the traditional office may raise fixed costs for firms and generate substantial avoidable environmental damage. This Chapter recommends competition advocacy to counterbalance state and local attempts to prevent the efficient disruption of the traditional office's fixed costs. Work-from-home represents an important step toward the post-scarcity world; but without a focus on what amounts to state-and-local protectionism in this sphere, we could wind up taking another step backwards.
RESUMO
AIM: The aim of the study was to compare the platelet-rich fibrin (PRF) and titanium-prepared platelet-rich fibrin (T-PRF) in the management of endo-perio lesions. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This study was conducted with 140 patients who are affected by endo-perio lesions, and the patients were divided into two groups. In group I, patients were treated with PRF, and in group II, patients were treated with T-PRF. Endodontic treatment was done in all cases, following a standardized aseptic method. Probing pocket and relative attachment level were recorded after 3 months and 6 months in both groups. RESULTS: After 3 months, the mean change of probing pocket depth (PPD) was 68% in group I and 33.41% in group II. The intergroup distinction was not significant (p > 0.05), whereas the intragroup evaluation was significant (p < 0.05). The mean change after 6 months was 42.59% in group I and 43.90% in group II. The difference was not significant (p > 0.05). After 3 months, the mean% change of relative attachment level (RAL) was 31.20% in group I and 31.60% in group II. The intergroup distinction was not significant (p > 0.05), whereas the intragroup evaluation established a considerable discrepancy (p < 0.05). The mean change after 6 months was 40.82% in group I and 42.12% in group II. CONCLUSION: Both PRF and T-PRF were effective in inducing a reduction in pocket depth and useful in gaining attachment level. CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE: With the use of PRF and T-PRF, the complex case of endo-perio lesions can be efficiently managed.
