RESUMO
BACKGROUND: Dental implant placement may require a bone graft for vertical and horizontal alveolar ridge augmentation. Due to its osteoconduction, osteoinductive, and osteogenesis, autogenous bone graft characteristics are considered the standard gold treatment. However, autografts can promote postoperative morbidity and implicate difficulties concerning the graft adaptation to the recipient's bone since it can eventually avoid gaps. To overcome these issues, this trial will compare the performance of Plenum® Oss 3Dß fit, an alloplastic graft, and a 3D-printed patient-specific graft based on ß-tricalcium phosphate to the autograft procedure. METHODS: This is a split-mouth randomized clinical study designed to evaluate the performance of personalized (patient-specific) bioceramic bone grafts (Plenum® Oss 3Dß fit) for bone augmentation of the atrophic anterior maxilla in comparison to the autogenous bone graft. We hypothesize that the gain and maintenance of the grafted area volume and the quality of the newly formed bone tissue after eight months postoperative with the synthetic patient-specific graft will be superior to the autogenous bone graft. To assess the quantity and the quality of bone neoformation, volumetric and histological analyses will be performed. DISCUSSION: The fabrication of medical devices by additive manufacturing presents advantages over conventional manufacturing processes, mostly related to the precision of geometry and anatomy. Additionally, the osteoconductive proprieties of ß-tricalcium phosphate enable this synthetic bone substitute as an alternative solution over autogenous graft for bone defect reconstruction. Thus, patient-specific bone grafts can potentially improve patient satisfaction, reducing the need for autogenous bone grafts, consequently avoiding implications related to this type of treatment, such as patient morbidity. TRIAL REGISTRATION: This study is registered in REBEC (Registro Brasileiro de Ensaios Clínicos): RBR-76wmm3q; UTN: U1111-1272-7773. Registration date: 14 September 2021.
Assuntos
Substitutos Ósseos , Implantes Dentários , Humanos , Autoenxertos/cirurgia , Autoenxertos/transplante , Maxila/cirurgia , Substitutos Ósseos/efeitos adversos , Transplante Ósseo/efeitos adversos , Transplante Ósseo/métodos , Atrofia/tratamento farmacológico , Atrofia/patologia , Cerâmica , Ouro , Implantação Dentária EndósseaRESUMO
OBJECTIVE: To validate two scores quantifying the ability of patients to use metered dose inhalers (MDIs) or dry powder inhalers (DPIs); to identify the most common errors made during their use; and to identify the patients in need of an educational program for the use of these devices. METHODS: This study was conducted in three phases: validation of the reliability of the inhaler technique scores; validation of the contents of the two scores using a convenience sample; and testing for criterion validation and discriminant validation of these instruments in patients who met the inclusion criteria. RESULTS: The convenience sample comprised 16 patients. Interobserver disagreement was found in 19% and 25% of the DPI and MDI scores, respectively. After expert analysis on the subject, the scores were modified and were applied in 72 patients. The most relevant difficulty encountered during the use of both types of devices was the maintenance of total lung capacity after a deep inhalation. The degree of correlation of the scores by observer was 0.97 (p < 0.0001). There was good interobserver agreement in the classification of patients as able/not able to use a DPI (50%/50% and 52%/58%; p < 0.01) and an MDI (49%/51% and 54%/46%; p < 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: The validated scores allow the identification and correction of inhaler technique errors during consultations and, as a result, improvement in the management of inhalation devices.
Assuntos
Inaladores de Pó Seco , Inaladores Dosimetrados , Educação de Pacientes como Assunto , Conhecimento do Paciente sobre a Medicação/normas , Adulto , Asma/tratamento farmacológico , Feminino , Humanos , Inalação/fisiologia , Masculino , Variações Dependentes do Observador , Educação de Pacientes como Assunto/normas , Educação de Pacientes como Assunto/tendências , Estudos Prospectivos , Reprodutibilidade dos Testes , Capacidade Pulmonar TotalRESUMO
AbstractObjective: To validate two scores quantifying the ability of patients to use metered dose inhalers (MDIs) or dry powder inhalers (DPIs); to identify the most common errors made during their use; and to identify the patients in need of an educational program for the use of these devices.Methods: This study was conducted in three phases: validation of the reliability of the inhaler technique scores; validation of the contents of the two scores using a convenience sample; and testing for criterion validation and discriminant validation of these instruments in patients who met the inclusion criteria.Results: The convenience sample comprised 16 patients. Interobserver disagreement was found in 19% and 25% of the DPI and MDI scores, respectively. After expert analysis on the subject, the scores were modified and were applied in 72 patients. The most relevant difficulty encountered during the use of both types of devices was the maintenance of total lung capacity after a deep inhalation. The degree of correlation of the scores by observer was 0.97 (p < 0.0001). There was good interobserver agreement in the classification of patients as able/not able to use a DPI (50%/50% and 52%/58%; p < 0.01) and an MDI (49%/51% and 54%/46%; p < 0.05).Conclusions: The validated scores allow the identification and correction of inhaler technique errors during consultations and, as a result, improvement in the management of inhalation devices.
ResumoObjetivo: Validar dois escores para medir a habilidade de pacientes em utilizar inaladores pressurizados (IPs) ou inaladores de pó (IPos), verificar os erros mais comuns na sua utilização e identificar os pacientes que necessitam de um programa educacional para o uso desses dispositivos.Métodos: Este estudo foi realizado em três etapas: validação da confiabilidade dos escores de uso dos dispositivos inalatórios; validação do conteúdo dos escores utilizando-se uma amostra de conveniência; e realização de testes para a validação de critério e a validação discriminante desses instrumentos em pacientes que preenchiam os critérios de inclusão do estudo.Resultados: A amostra de conveniência foi composta por 16 pacientes, e houve discordância interobservador em 19% e 25% para os escores de IPo e IP, respectivamente. Após a análise de expertos no assunto, os escores sofreram modificações e foram aplicados em 72 pacientes. A dificuldade mais relevante no uso de ambos os dispositivos foi a manutenção da capacidade pulmonar total após inspiração profunda. O grau de correlação dos escores por observador foi de 0,97 (p < 0,0001). Houve boa concordância interobservador na classificação dos pacientes como aptos/não aptos para uso de IPo (50%/50% e 52%/58%; p < 0,01) e de IP (49%/51% e 54%/46%; p < 0,05).Conclusões: Os escores validados permitem identificar e corrigir os erros da técnica inalatória ao longo das consultas e, em consequência, melhorar o manejo dos dispositivos para inalação.