RESUMEN
Osseodensification is a novel biomechanical bone preparation technique that has been established to replace conventional bone drilling and therefore will optimize the implant site. The purpose of this systematic review was to compare the implant stability obtained by osseodensification drilling to those associated with conventional drilling techniques. An electronic search was performed in the PubMed, Scopus, EMBASE, Cochrane Oral Health Group, and Dentistry and Oral Science Source databases searched through Elton B. Stephens Company (EBSCO) for potentially relevant publications in the English language from January 2013 to December 2022. Randomized clinical trials (RCTs) and non-randomized studies of interventions (NRSIs), contrasting osseodensification drilling with conventional drilling, studies documenting implant stability quotient (ISQ), and studies reporting the immediate outcome and at least three months of follow-up after dental implant placement were included. Two independent investigators evaluated the quality of the reviewed studies to determine the risk of bias using the version 2 of Cochrane risk-of-bias (RoB) tool for RCTs (RoB 2) and RoB for NRSIs (ROBINS-I). Majority of the studies showed that bone density was significantly higher in the osseodensification group. The overall RoB for the NRSIs was reported to be low with respect to confounding, selection, classification, incomplete data, deviance from interventions, outcome evaluation, and selective reporting. The quality assessment of the RCT studies included in the review using the RoB 2 tool showed a high overall risk. The findings of the current review reveal that osseodensification drilling exhibited higher resonance frequency analysis (RFA) and ISQ values than conventional drilling protocols. Similarly, when osseodensification regions were contrasted with traditional drilling, bone density at the implant surface was augmented.
RESUMEN
BACKGROUND: There are marked local inconsistencies in the Arabian Peninsula about the role of preoperative esophagogastroduodenoscopy (EGD) in bariatric surgery. Thus, this study was conducted to determine the frequency of endoscopic and histological findings in the Saudi population presenting for pre-bariatric surgery evaluation. MATERIAL AND METHODS: This was a retrospective study that included all the patients who were evaluated by EGD at Dammam Medical Complex, Dammam, Saudi Arabia, between 2018 and 2021 as a part of their pre-bariatric-surgery evaluation. RESULTS: A total of 684 patients were included. They consisted of 250 male and 434 female patients (36.5% and 63.5%, respectively). The mean ± standard deviation for the patients' age and body mass index (BMI) were 36.4±10.6 years and 44.6±5.1 kg/m2, respectively. Significant endoscopic or histopathological findings as defined by the presence of large (≥ 2 cm) hiatus hernia, esophagitis, gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD), Barrett esophagus, gastric ulcer, duodenal ulcer, or intestinal metaplasia were found in 143 patients (20.9%); 364 patients (53.2%) were diagnosed to have Helicobacter pylori infection. CONCLUSION: The high number of significant endoscopic and histopathological findings in our study supports the routine use of preoperative EGD in all bariatric surgery patients. However, omitting EGD before Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (RYGB) in asymptomatic patients is still reasonable as the most frequently found significant findings, esophagitis, and hiatus hernia, are less likely to impact the operative plans in RYGB. Similarly, active surveillance and treatment of H. pylori infections in obese patients are important but it is not clear whether H. pylori eradication should be done before bariatric surgery.
RESUMEN
Background Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) classically presents as a respiratory illness with fever, dry cough, and dyspnea on exertion. Along with respiratory signs and symptoms, gastrointestinal (GI) manifestations and liver injury have been recognized during the progression of the disease. This study aimed to determine the prevalence of GI symptoms and hepatic injury during COVID-19 infections and their consequences on the outcome of the disease. Methodology We conducted a retrospective survey of 715 participants age 16 or older diagnosed with COVID-19 and reported GI and hepatic manifestations in the Dammam Medical Complex in Dammam, Eastern Province, Saudi Arabia, from March 1, 2020, to May 31, 2020. We recorded clinical manifestations, laboratory test results, patient demographics, comorbidities, and treatments. Results The mean age of the study population was 46 years (88% were male, 12% were female), and 80% were non-Saudi. While most patients recovered and were discharged (n=603, 84.62%), 100 (13.99%) died due to COVID-19. Type 2 diabetes was present in 182 patients (79%) discharged and 45 patients (21%) who died. Hypertension was present in 26 (67%) discharged and 158 patients (81%) who died. Cardiovascular disease was present in 26 patients (67%) discharged and 13 (33%) who died. Chronic kidney disease was found in 11 patients (61%) discharged and six (33%) who died. Diarrhea was present in 11% of patients, nausea in 8%, and vomiting in 9% of patients. Twenty percent of patients had at least one GI symptom. Only 10% of those who died had GI symptoms, while 88% of those discharged had GI symptoms. Serum levels of alanine aminotransferase, aspartate aminotransferase, total bilirubin, alkaline phosphatase, and γ-glutamyl transpeptidase were generally higher in the patients who died than in those who were discharged. Conclusions We noted an increase in at least one liver enzyme with no clinically significant acute liver injury or cases of acute liver failure as sequelae of COVID-19. However, the presence of injury at the time of admission resulted in a significantly higher mortality rate. Only a small number of patients infected with COVID-19 exhibited GI manifestations. The etiology of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2-related GI involvement is due to multiple factors. It is not yet fully understood if GI manifestations are clinical signs of high viral loads or another physiological process. The clinical manifestation and laboratory test results indicate that COVID-19 impacts the hepatic system and GI tract, indicating that COVID-19 infection may risk liver and GI tract injury.
RESUMEN
Introduction: The purpose of this study was to evaluate and compare the buccal infiltration (BI) technique with the buccal plus palatal infiltration (BPI) technique using 4% articaine with 1:100,000 epinephrine. Methods: A total of 50 adult patients received BI, and the other 50 adult patients received BPI with 4% articaine with 1:100,000 epinephrine. During RCT procedure, when the patient experienced pain, the treatment was stopped and the extent of the procedure was documented. When a patient reported "no pain" (0 mm) or "weak/mild pain" (0 <= 54 mm), the anesthesia was considered successful. Results: Statistical analysis using unpaired t-test showed that the mean pain scores in both groups were comparable. Conclusion: The pain scores in both groups were comparable, but BI is better than BPI as a painful and traumatic palatal injection was avoided.