Notes

SEDAR/SECCE ECMO management consensus record.
STUDY QUESTION How does ovarian stimulation in an oocyte donor affect the IVF cycle and obstetric outcomes in recipients? SUMMARY ANSWER Higher donor oocyte yields may affect the proportion of usable embryos but do not affect live birth delivery rate or obstetric outcomes in oocyte recipients. WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY In autologous oocyte fresh IVF cycles, the highest live birth delivery rates occur when ~15-25 oocytes are retrieved, with a decline thereafter, perhaps due to the hormone milieu, with super-physiologic estrogen levels. There are scant data in donor oocyte cycles, wherein the oocyte environment is separated from the uterine environment. STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION This was a retrospective cohort study from 2008 to 2015 of 350 oocyte donors who underwent a total of 553 ovarian stimulations and oocyte retrievals. The oocytes were vitrified and then distributed to 989 recipients who had 1745 embryo transfers. The primary outcome was live birth delivery rate, defined as the number of deliveries that rlation, including ovarian hyperstimulation. In addition, long-term health outcomes of extreme ovarian stimulation are lacking. Lastly, we did not collect progesterone levels and are unable to evaluate the impact of rising progesterone on outcomes. WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS Live birth delivery rates remain high with varying amounts of oocytes retrieved in this donor oocyte model. In a vitrified oocyte bank setting, where oocytes are typically sent as a limited number cohort, recipients are not affected by oocyte yields. STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTEREST(S) Additional REDCap grant support at Emory was provided through UL1 TR000424. Dr. Audrey Gaskins was supported in part by a career development award from the NIEHS (R00ES026648). © The Author(s) 2020. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the European Society of Human Reproduction and Embryology. All rights reserved. For permissions, please e-mail [email protected] surgical approaches including the slot and the extrasinus techniques have been described to overcome disadvantages of the original Brånemark technique for the placement of zygomatic implants. A new concern associated with zygomatic implants placed externally to the maxillary wall is the possibility of disturbing buccal soft tissues, ending up with a dehiscence and a potential infective problem. Recently, a new methodology known as the Zygoma Anatomy-Guided Approach (ZAGA) has been described based on the concept of delivering specific therapy for each patient. ZAGA involves a variety of possibilities of implant trajectory from the intrasinus to an eventual extrasinus passage according to variations in patient anatomy. ZAGA methodology includes a rationale of how to prevent most of the reported complications of zygomatic implants. The objective of this technical note is to introduce the "Scarf Graft" as a part of the ZAGA protocol intended to prevent soft tissue dehiscence around extramaxillary zygomatic implants. A pediculated connective tissue graft is placed around the neck of the extramaxillary zygomatic implants. The increased connective tissue thickness consistently gives stable gingival tissue for prevention of recession. Currently, the treatment of soft tissue dehiscence around zygomatic implants does not have predictable results. Protocols for its prevention, such as the proposed ZAGA Scarf Graft, should be incorporated if an eventual dehiscence is foreseen.PURPOSE The aim of this crossover study was to evaluate patient satisfaction and oral health related-quality of life (OHRQoL) with different connectors used for implant-retained overdentures in subjects with resorbed mandibles. MATERIALS AND METHODS Eighteen edentulous patients with atrophied mandibular bone received traditional maxillary and mandibular dentures (control). After 3 months, two implants were inserted in the canine regions. Three months later, each patient received the following overdentures using a crossover design (1) bar overdentures, (2) telescopic overdentures, and (3) stud overdentures. Patient satisfaction (primary outcome) was measured by visual analog scale (VAS). OHRQoL (secondary outcome) was measured by oral health impact profile (OHIP-14). Questions of VAS and OHIP-14 were evaluated after 3 months of using conventional dentures, bar overdentures, telescopic overdentures, and stud overdentures. RESULTS For all questionnaires, conventional dentures recorded significantly lower satisfawith oral hygiene.PURPOSE The aim of this study was to assess the radiographic and clinical outcomes of extra-short implants either alone or in conjunction with osteotome sinus floor elevation and to compare these with regular-sized implants in the posterior atrophic maxilla. MATERIALS AND METHODS Systemically healthy, nonsmoker individuals having at least one tooth gap in the posterior maxilla were included in the study. When the residual bone height was .05). CONCLUSION Extra-short implants placed either in native bone or in conjunction with osteotome sinus floor elevation may provide similar clinical and radiographic outcomes that are comparable to those obtained with regular implants. Both extra-short implant placement methods can be promising noninvasive treatment options for the posterior maxilla, and implant dimension, crown length, crown-to-implant ratio, and residual bone height may not affect the crestal bone level change, at least in the short term.PURPOSE When encountering a buccal bone defect during implant placement, guided bone regeneration (GBR) is a well-accepted method for bone reconstruction. However, it is still unclear if the esthetic and patient-reported outcomes are comparable to implants placed in native bone. The purpose of this prospective trial was to compare implants placed with a GBR procedure for a small (≤ 4 mm) buccal defect with implants placed completely in native bone (control). MATERIALS AND METHODS Patients were allocated to the GBR group or control group during implant placement in the esthetic zone. this website Implants were placed after at least 12 weeks of healing of the extraction sockets. A buccal bone defect of ≤ 4 mm resulted in allocation to the GBR group. Follow-up was performed until 12 months after loading. Outcome measurements were as follows esthetic scores, patient-reported outcome measurements, implant survival and complications, clinical indices, and radiographic measurements. RESULTS In total, 45 patients were included, of which 23 underwent a GBR procedure after implant placement, and in 22 patients no GBR was necessary.
Homepage: https://www.selleckchem.com/mTOR.html