RESUMO

Produtos derivados de plantas podem representar estratégia promissora na odontologia. Desse modo, o objetivo deste trabalho foi levantar na literatura os estudos sobre o uso popular de plantas em afecções orais, bem como os estudos de avaliação da atividade antimicrobiana in vitro de extratos vegetais e compostos isolados sobre patógenos orais, no período de 1996 a 2011. Quarenta e sete famílias botânicas foram referidas, com maior número de citações para Anacardiaceae, sendo Anacardium occidentale L., a espécie mais citada. O levantamento sobre estudos de avaliação antimicrobiana relacionou extratos de sessenta e seis espécies vegetais pertencentes a trinta e oito famílias botânicas, destacando-se Anacardiaceae, com pesquisas realizadas de forma predominante com as folhas, investigadas pelo método de difusão em ágar. Cinquenta e oito substâncias isoladas de plantas foram avaliadas, demonstrando que Terminalia chebula Retz (Combretaceae) representa a espécie vegetal com atividade antimicrobiana in vitro mais significativa, apresentando halo de inibição de 32,97 mm contra Staphylococcus aureus, microrganismo encontrado em infecções orais; enquanto ácido tetra iso-alfa isolada de Humulus lupulus L. (Canabinaceae) apresentou maior halo de inibição para Streptococcus mutans (26,0 mm). Os resultados apresentados devem estimular o desenvolvimento dos estudos de validação na garantia do uso seguro e eficaz de espécies vegetais em odontologia.

Products derived from plants may represent a promising strategy in dentistry. Thus, the objective of this paper is to review studies of the popular use of plants in oral diseases, as well as studies evaluating the in vitro antimicrobial activity of plant extracts and isolated compounds in oral pathogens from 1996 to 2011. Forty-seven botanical families were mentioned, with the highest number of referencesfor Anacardiaceae, and Anacardium occidentale L. was the most mentioned specie. The review of antimicrobial activity studies relatedextracts from sixty-six plant species belonging to thirty-eight botanical families, especially Anacardiaceae, being predominant tests with leaves, investigated by the agar diffusion method. Fifty-eight compounds isolated from plants have been evaluated, showing that Terminalia chebula Retz (Combretaceae) represents the plant species with more meaningful in vitro antimicrobial activity, with inhibition zone of 32.97 mm against Staphylococcus aureus, microorganism found in oral infections, while tetra iso-alpha acid isolated from Humulus lupulus L. (Canabinaceae) showed greater inhibition zone for Streptococcus mutans (26.0 mm). The presented results should encourage the development of validation studies, ensuring the safe and effective use of plant species in dentistry.

Assuntos

RESUMO

BACKGROUND: Gonadotrophin-releasing hormone agonist (GnRHa) has been widely used in cycles of in vitro fertilization (IVF). Among the various types of GnRHa ovarian stimulation protocols, the long protocol presents the best clinical pregnancy rates per cycle initiated (GnRHa administration until the suppression of ovarian activity is evident, within approximately 14 days). There are two types of GnRHa administration that can be used to lead to hypophysis desensitization in the IVF cycle in the long protocol: one consisting of daily GnRHa low doses, and another with the administration of analogues in higher long-acting doses (depot). There are controversies in the data as far as the number of ampoules to be used in the cycles with the depot GnRHa treatment, as well as regarding the number of follicles made available, the number of oocytes, fertilization, implantation and pregnancy rates. OBJECTIVES: The objective of this study is to compare the use of a single long-acting depot dose to that of daily GnRHa doses in in vitro fertilization cycles. SEARCH STRATEGY: We searched the Cochrane Menstrual Disorders and Subfertility Group's specialised register of trials (searched 15 April 2004), Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (Issue 2, 2004), MEDLINE (1984 to April 2004), EMBASE (1984 to June 2003), LILACS (1984 to April 2004) and reference lists of articles. SELECTION CRITERIA: Types of studies: RCTs comparing depot and daily administration of GnRHa for long protocols in IVF treatment cycles. TYPES OF PARTICIPANTS: Couples with any cause of infertility. Types of interventions: Ovarian stimulation with human follicle stimulating hormone (hFSH) and/or human menopausal gonadotropin (hMG) and/or recombinant follicle stimulating hormone (rFSH) in IVF treatment cycles. Types of outcome measures: Clinical pregnancy rates per woman, per oocyte retrieval procedure, per embryo transfer, number of oocytes retrieved, oocyte fertilization rates, ongoing/delivered pregnancy rates per cycle started, abortion rates, multiple pregnancy rates, number of ampoules of gonadotropin employed, ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome (OHSS) incidence rates, cost analysis and patient convenience. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: The reviewers evaluated allocation concealment, classified as adequate, uncertain or inadequate. Two reviewers extracted the data independently. All analyses were performed according to the intention-to-treat method. MAIN RESULTS: Six studies, with a total of 552 women, were included and analysed. The studies do not indicate that there is statistically significant difference between the use of depot GnRHa or daily GnRHa in the primary outcome, clinical pregnancy rates per woman (OR 0.94, 95% CI 0.65 to 1.37). However, there was sufficient evidence that the use of depot GnRHa for pituitary desensitization in IVF cycles increased the number of gonadotrophins ampoules (WMD 3.30, 95% CI 1.27 to 5.34) and the duration of the ovarian stimulation (WMD 0.56, 95% CI 0.31 to 0.81), as compared with daily GnRHa. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Although we recognise that the clinical pregnancy rates per woman are not the ideal primary outcome, we found no evidence of differences between the long protocol using depot or daily GnRHa for IVF cycles. However, the use of depot GnRHa is associated with increased requirements for gonadotrophins and a longer time required for ovarian stimulation. If these differences could be shown to translate into economic benefit, depot GnRHa should increase the overall costs of IVF treatment.

Assuntos

RESUMO

UNLABELLED: This paper is based on a Cochrane review published in The Cochrane Library, issue 4, 2002 (see www.CochraneLibrary.net for information) with permission from The Cochrane Collaboration. Cochrane reviews are regularly updated as new evidence emerges and in response to comments and criticisms, and The Cochrane Library should be consulted for the most recent version of the review. BACKGROUND: GnRH agonists have been widely used in cycles of IVF. There are two types of GnRH agonist administration that can be used to lead to hypophysis desensitization in IVF cycles in the long protocol: one consisting of daily low doses of GnRH agonist and the other the administration of analogues in higher, long-acting doses (depot). The objective of this study is to compare the use of a single long-acting depot dose with that of daily GnRH agonist doses in IVF cycles. METHODS: Relevant randomized controlled trials were identified by electronic search of the following databases: MEDLINE, EMBASE, LILACS (Latin American and Caribbean Center on Health Sciences Information) and the Cochrane Controlled Trials Register. Six studies, with a total of 552 women, were included and analysed. RESULTS: The studies do not indicate that there is a statistically significant difference between the use of depot GnRH agonist and of daily GnRH agonist in the primary outcome, clinical pregnancy rates per woman [odds ratio (OR) 0.94, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.65-1.37]. However, there was sufficient evidence showing that the use of depot GnRH agonist for pituitary desensitization in IVF cycles increased the number of gonadotrophin ampoules [weighted mean difference (WMD) 3.30, 95% CI 1.27-5.34] and the duration of the ovarian stimulation (WMD 0.56, 95% CI 0.31-0.81), as compared with the use of daily GnRH agonist. CONCLUSIONS: Although we recognize that the clinical pregnancy rates per woman are not the ideal primary outcome, we found no evidence of differences between the long protocols using depot or daily GnRH agonist for IVF cycles. However, the use of depot GnRH agonist is associated with increased requirements for gonadotrophins and a longer time needed for ovarian stimulation. If these differences could be shown to translate into economic benefit, depot GnRH agonist would increase the overall costs of IVF treatment.

Assuntos

RESUMO

BACKGROUND: Gonadotrophin-releasing hormone agonist (GnRHa) has been widely used in cycles of in vitro fertilization (IVF). Among the various types of GnRHa ovarian stimulation protocols, the long protocol presents the best clinical pregnancy rates per cycle initiated (GnRHa administration until the suppression of ovarian activity is evident, within approximately 14 days). There are two types of GnRHa administration that can be used to lead to hypophysis desensitization in the IVF cycle in the long protocol: one consisting of daily GnRHa low doses, and another with the administration of analogues in higher long-acting doses (depot). There are controversies in the data as far as the number of ampoules to be used in the cycles with the depot GnRHa treatment, as well as regarding the number of follicles made available, the number of oocytes, fertilization, implantation and pregnancy rates. OBJECTIVES: The objective of this study is to compare the use of a single long-acting depot dose to that of daily GnRHa doses in in vitro fertilization cycles. SEARCH STRATEGY: Relevant RCTs were identified by electronic search of the following databases: MEDLINE, EMBASE, LILACS (Latin American and Caribbean Center on Health Sciences Information) and the Cochrane Controlled Trials Register. SELECTION CRITERIA: Types of studies: The study analyses RCTs comparing depot and daily administration of GnRHa for long protocols in IVF treatment cycles. TYPES OF PARTICIPANTS: Couples with any cause of infertility. Types of interventions: Ovarian stimulation with human follicle stimulating hormone (hFSH) and/or human menopausal gonadotropin (hMG) and/or recombinant follicle stimulating hormone (rFSH) in IVF treatment cycles. Types of outcome measures: Clinical pregnancy rates per woman, per oocyte retrieval procedure, per embryo transfer, number of oocytes retrieved, oocyte fertilization rates, ongoing/delivered pregnancy rates per cycle started, abortion rates, multiple pregnancy rates, number of ampoules of gonadotropin employed, ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome (OHSS) incidence rates, cost analysis and patient convenience. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: The reviewers evaluated allocation concealment, classified as adequate, uncertain or inadequate. Two reviewers extracted the data independently. All analyses were performed according to the intention-to-treat method. MAIN RESULTS: Six studies, with a total of 552 women, were included and analysed. The studies do not indicate that there is statistically significant difference between the use of depot GnRHa or daily GnRHa in the primary outcome, clinical pregnancy rates per woman (OR 0.94, 95% CI 0.65 to 1.37). However, there was sufficient evidence that the use of depot GnRHa for pituitary desensitization in IVF cycles increased the number of gonadotrophins ampoules (WMD 3.30, 95% CI 1.27 to 5.34) and the duration of the ovarian stimulation (WMD 0.56, 95% CI 0.31 to 0.81), as compared with daily GnRHa. REVIEWER'S CONCLUSIONS: Although we recognise that the clinical pregnancy rates per woman are not the ideal primary outcome, we found no evidence of differences between the long protocol using depot or daily GnRHa for IVF cycles. However, the use of depot GnRHa is associated with increased requirements for gonadotrophins and a longer time required for ovarian stimulation. If these differences could be shown to translate into economic benefit, depot GnRHa should increase the overall costs of IVF treatment.

Assuntos

RESUMO

Oocyte donation is a novel alternative for the treatment of patients who have infertility associated with ovarian failure. Both IVF-ET and GIFT represent new techniques of treatment for this group of patients. Synchronization between donor and recipient is very simple and also flexible. In our study population, four patients received oocyte or embryo donation after at least 20 days of E replacement, and two of them conceived a clinical pregnancy. Apparently, the flexibility of our protocol of E replacement allows an extension of the proliferative phase in cases that need to have additional time to synchronize the recipient's cycle to that of the donors.

Assuntos

Assuntos