Evaluation of Different Materials Used for Sealing of Implant Abutment Access Channel and the Peri‐implant Sulcus Microbiota: A 6 Month, Randomized Controlled Trial

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Caroline V. Rubino ◽  
Brandon G. Katz ◽  
Kylie Langlois ◽  
Howard H. Wang ◽  
Julio A. Carrion ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Randomized Controlled Trial ◽  
Controlled Trial ◽  
Randomized Controlled ◽  
Access Channel ◽  
Implant Abutment ◽  
Materials Used

scholarly journals Implant Abutment Cleaning by Plasma of Argon: 5-Year Follow-Up of a Randomized Controlled Trial

2016 ◽  
Vol 87 (4) ◽  
pp. 434-442 ◽  
Author(s):  
Luigi Canullo ◽  
Marco Tallarico ◽  
David Peñarrocha-Oltra ◽  
Alberto Monje ◽  
Hom-Lay Wang ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Randomized Controlled Trial ◽  
Controlled Trial ◽  
Randomized Controlled ◽  
Implant Abutment

scholarly journals Influence of the implant-abutment connection on the ratio between height and thickness of tissues at the buccal zenith: a randomized controlled trial on 188 implants placed in 104 patients

2020 ◽  
Vol 20 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Davide Farronato ◽  
Pietro Mario Pasini ◽  
Mattia Manfredini ◽  
Cristian Scognamiglio ◽  
Andrea Alain Orsina ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Randomized Controlled Trial ◽  
Controlled Trial ◽  
Randomized Controlled ◽  
Implant Abutment

scholarly journals Influence of implant-abutment connection structure on peri-implant bone level in a second molar: A 1-year randomized controlled trial

2019 ◽  
Vol 11 (3) ◽  
pp. 147 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jin-Cheol Kim ◽  
Jungwon Lee ◽  
Sungtae Kim ◽  
Ki-Tae Koo ◽  
Hae-Young Kim ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Randomized Controlled Trial ◽  
Controlled Trial ◽  
Second Molar ◽  
Randomized Controlled ◽  
Implant Abutment ◽  
Bone Level

Treatment Fidelity Procedures for an Aphasia Intervention Within a Randomized Controlled Trial: Design, Feasibility, and Results

2020 ◽  
Vol 29 (1S) ◽  
pp. 412-424
Author(s):  
Elissa L. Conlon ◽  
Emily J. Braun ◽  
Edna M. Babbitt ◽  
Leora R. Cherney
Keyword(s):  
Randomized Controlled Trial ◽  
Controlled Trial ◽  
Treatment Protocol ◽  
Treatment Fidelity ◽  
Protocol Adherence ◽  
Study Condition ◽  
Randomized Controlled ◽  
Aphasia Therapy ◽  
Percent Accuracy ◽  
Over Time

Purpose This study reports on the treatment fidelity procedures implemented during a 5-year randomized controlled trial comparing intensive and distributed comprehensive aphasia therapy. Specifically, the results of 1 treatment, verb network strengthening treatment (VNeST), are examined. Method Eight participants were recruited for each of 7 consecutive cohorts for a total of 56 participants. Participants completed 60 hr of aphasia therapy, including 15 hr of VNeST. Two experienced speech-language pathologists delivered the treatment. To promote treatment fidelity, the study team developed a detailed manual of procedures and fidelity checklists, completed role plays to standardize treatment administration, and video-recorded all treatment sessions for review. To assess protocol adherence during treatment delivery, trained research assistants not involved in the treatment reviewed video recordings of a subset of randomly selected VNeST treatment sessions and completed the fidelity checklists. This process was completed for 32 participants representing 2 early cohorts and 2 later cohorts, which allowed for measurement of protocol adherence over time. Percent accuracy of protocol adherence was calculated across clinicians, cohorts, and study condition (intensive vs. distributed therapy). Results The fidelity procedures were sufficient to promote and verify a high level of adherence to the treatment protocol across clinicians, cohorts, and study condition. Conclusion Treatment fidelity strategies and monitoring are feasible when incorporated into the study design. Treatment fidelity monitoring should be completed at regular intervals during the course of a study to ensure that high levels of protocol adherence are maintained over time and across conditions.

Phonomotor Versus Semantic Feature Analysis Treatment for Anomia in 58 Persons With Aphasia: A Randomized Controlled Trial

2019 ◽  
Vol 62 (12) ◽  
pp. 4464-4482 ◽  
Author(s):  
Diane L. Kendall ◽  
Megan Oelke Moldestad ◽  
Wesley Allen ◽  
Janaki Torrence ◽  
Stephen E. Nadeau
Keyword(s):  
Randomized Controlled Trial ◽  
Response Latency ◽  
Controlled Trial ◽  
Semantic Knowledge ◽  
Semantic Feature ◽  
Feature Analysis ◽  
Group Differences ◽  
Randomized Controlled ◽  
Confrontation Naming ◽  
Semantic Feature Analysis

Purpose The ultimate goal of anomia treatment should be to achieve gains in exemplars trained in the therapy session, as well as generalization to untrained exemplars and contexts. The purpose of this study was to test the efficacy of phonomotor treatment, a treatment focusing on enhancement of phonological sequence knowledge, against semantic feature analysis (SFA), a lexical-semantic therapy that focuses on enhancement of semantic knowledge and is well known and commonly used to treat anomia in aphasia. Method In a between-groups randomized controlled trial, 58 persons with aphasia characterized by anomia and phonological dysfunction were randomized to receive 56–60 hr of intensively delivered treatment over 6 weeks with testing pretreatment, posttreatment, and 3 months posttreatment termination. Results There was no significant between-groups difference on the primary outcome measure (untrained nouns phonologically and semantically unrelated to each treatment) at 3 months posttreatment. Significant within-group immediately posttreatment acquisition effects for confrontation naming and response latency were observed for both groups. Treatment-specific generalization effects for confrontation naming were observed for both groups immediately and 3 months posttreatment; a significant decrease in response latency was observed at both time points for the SFA group only. Finally, significant within-group differences on the Comprehensive Aphasia Test–Disability Questionnaire ( Swinburn, Porter, & Howard, 2004 ) were observed both immediately and 3 months posttreatment for the SFA group, and significant within-group differences on the Functional Outcome Questionnaire ( Glueckauf et al., 2003 ) were found for both treatment groups 3 months posttreatment. Discussion Our results are consistent with those of prior studies that have shown that SFA treatment and phonomotor treatment generalize to untrained words that share features (semantic or phonological sequence, respectively) with the training set. However, they show that there is no significant generalization to untrained words that do not share semantic features or phonological sequence features.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document