How Do Mines Explode? Understanding Risk in European Mining Doctrine, 1803-1906.

Historians of risk and disaster have paid little attention to coal mining-an industry characterized by extreme risks and disasters-even though coal mine operators were concerned with the causes of explosions throughout the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. This article goes beyond nationally oriented mining scholarship on coal mine safety and regulations to examine one form of industrial risk: how did European researchers understand the role of coal dust in mine explosions. It describes the complex factors involved in applying science and technology methodologies to solve industrial risk in this dangerous sector. It traces European countries shifting after 1882 to new types of mine experimentation sponsored by the state and mine owners to better mimic real-life situations, while French mining researchers continued to defend work in laboratory settings. French researchers converged methodologically with their colleagues only after the French Courrières mine catastrophe in 1906.

Restoration with implants in patients with recessive dystrophic epidermolysis bullosa and patient satisfaction with the implant-supported superstructure.

PURPOSE: The use of endosseous implants in the prosthetic restoration of edentulous patients with recessive dystrophic epidermolysis bullosa (RDEB) may provide improved outcomes when compared with traditional prosthetic methods. The aim of this study was to evaluate the feasibility of placing endosseous implants in patients with RDEB and to compare the treatment outcomes of fixed and removable implant-supported restorations in the edentulous maxilla or mandible with the main emphasis on patient response. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Six patients with RDEB were treated with implants. All patients were completely edentulous in either the maxilla or mandible and had marked oral involvement, with alterations in the soft and hard tissues in all cases. Three patients were treated with fixed, screw-retained implant-supported prostheses, and 3 were treated with removable implant-supported prostheses. Six months after prosthetic restoration, patients were given a questionnaire to assess their psychologic well-being and satisfaction with the implant-supported restoration marked on a visual analog scale. RESULTS: A total of 38 dental implants (21 maxillary, 17 mandibular) were placed in 6 patients. The implant success rate was 97.9%. The average follow-up from implant placement was 5.5 years (range, 1 to 9). The fixed and removable implant-supported prostheses were associated with improvements in comfort and retention, function, esthetics and appearance, taste, speech, and self-esteem. The level of satisfaction was slightly higher in patients with a fixed prosthesis. CONCLUSION: These findings suggest that endosseous implants can be successfully placed and provide support for prostheses in patients with RDEB. Patients with fixed prostheses and overdentures were satisfied with their implant-supported prostheses in the edentulous maxilla and mandible.

Complete fixed prostheses over implants in patients with oral epidermolysis bullosa.

PURPOSE: This study was conducted to evaluate the feasibility of placing fixed prostheses over endosseous implants in edentulous patients with recessive dystrophic epidermolysis bullosa. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Three cases of dental implants with fixed prostheses are presented. All 3 patients had marked oral involvement, with devastating alterations in the soft and hard tissues. The use of fixed prostheses avoids contact between the prosthesis itself and the oral mucosa, thus preventing the formation of blisters. RESULTS: A total of 27 implants (15 maxillary and 12 mandibular) were placed. One maxillary implant failed; the rest integrated successfully, allowing crown placement. The average follow-up after implant placement was 3 years (range, 1 to 5 years). CONCLUSIONS: Our findings suggest that endosseous implants are not contraindicated and can be placed successfully to improve these patients' quality of life. Implants can provide support for complete fixed prosthesis restoration in patients with epidermolysis bullosa. This procedure keeps the prosthesis from rubbing on the oral mucosa and prevents the development of ulcerations, improving mastication and esthetics.