P227 ASTHMA EXACERBATION REDUCTION IN ADULTS WITH HIGH/LOW AIRWAY REVERSIBILITY FOLLOWING OMALIZUMAB TREATMENT: RESULTS FROM PROSPERO

2019 ◽  
Vol 123 (5) ◽  
pp. S41-S42
Author(s):  
S. DeLeon ◽  
F. Barsanti ◽  
T. Haselkorn ◽  
B. Yoo ◽  
B. Creasy ◽  
...  
2001 ◽  
Vol 6 (1) ◽  
pp. 1-3
Author(s):  
Robert H. Haralson

Abstract The AMA Guides to the Evaluation of Permanent Impairment (AMA Guides), Fifth Edition, was published in November 2000 and contains major changes from its predecessor. In the Fourth Edition, all musculoskeletal evaluation and rating was described in a single chapter. In the Fifth Edition, this information has been divided into three separate chapters: Upper Extremity (13), Lower Extremity (14), and Spine (15). This article discusses changes in the spine chapter. The Models for rating spinal impairment now are called Methods. The AMA Guides, Fifth Edition, has reverted to standard terminology for spinal regions in the Diagnosis-related estimates (DRE) Method, and both it and the Range of Motion (ROM) Method now reference cervical, thoracic, and lumbar. Also, the language requiring the use of the DRE, rather than the ROM Method has been strengthened. The biggest change in the DRE Method is that evaluation should include the treatment results. Unfortunately, the Fourth Edition's philosophy regarding when and how to rate impairment using the DRE Model led to a number of problems, including the same rating of all patients with radiculopathy despite some true differences in outcomes. The term differentiator was abandoned and replaced with clinical findings. Significant changes were made in evaluation of patients with spinal cord injuries, and evaluators should become familiar with these and other changes in the Fifth Edition.


2014 ◽  
Vol 226 (02) ◽  
Author(s):  
W Balwierz ◽  
T Klekawka ◽  
A Moryl-Bujakowska ◽  
M Matysiak ◽  
I Malinowska ◽  
...  

2014 ◽  
Vol 226 (02) ◽  
Author(s):  
A Varan ◽  
A Karhan ◽  
C Akyuz ◽  
B Aydin ◽  
B Yalcin ◽  
...  

2020 ◽  
Vol 23 (2) ◽  
pp. 28-33
Author(s):  
Indira Apriantika ◽  
Agung Krismariono

A healthy and beautiful smile can affect appearance and confidence. One of the aesthetic problems in dentistry that is often complained of by patients is excessive gingival display (gummy smile). The excessive gingival display can be caused by several factors, one of which is altered passive eruption (APE). One of the treatments to correct gummy smile related to APE is crown lengthening. Crown lengthening can be with bone reduction (gingivectomy with bone reduction) or without bone reduction (gingivectomy). Crown Lengthening with bone reduction is a surgical procedure that aims to maintain the dentogingival complex and to improve smile aesthetics. The purpose of this case report is to determine the crown lengthening with bone reduction (gingivectomy with bone reduction) procedure as a gummy smile treatment related to APE .A23-year-old female patient, came to Dental Hospital of Universitas Airlangga with complaints of her upper gum which not in the same length and the teeth looked short, she considered her smile was less aesthetic. After conducting analyses relating to aesthetics and periodontal tissue, crown lengthening with bone reduction was chosen for this patient treatment. The treatment results are quite good, visible gingival margins that matched the gingival zenith and improved patient's smile profile. APE as the etiology of patient's gummy smile can be corrected. There are no post-surgical complications such as excessive pain and infection. A proper diagnosis, treatment plan, and good techniques can produce a harmonious smile on the patient.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document