scholarly journals A Double Blind Split Mouth Randomized Clinical Trail Comparing Marginal Fit Of Porcelain Laminate Veneers After Finishing Prepared Surfaces With Ultrasonic Tips

2021 ◽  
pp. 4249-4253
Author(s):  
Anas Abdo ◽  
Keyword(s):  
Double Blind ◽  
Marginal Fit ◽  
Clinical Trail ◽  
Laminate Veneers

Comparison of ED95 of Butorphanol and Sufentanil for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy Sedation: a Randomized Controlled Trial

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Xiaona Zhu ◽  
Limei Chen ◽  
Shuang Zheng ◽  
Linmin Pan
Keyword(s):  
Recovery Time ◽  
Partial Agonist ◽  
Controlled Trial ◽  
Randomized Study ◽  
Sequential Method ◽  
Double Blind ◽  
Gi Endoscopy ◽  
Severity Scores ◽  
Clinical Trail ◽  
Group B

Abstract Background: Butorphanol, a synthetic opioid partial agonist analgesic, has been widely used to control perioperative pain. However, the ideal dose and availability of butorphanol for gastrointestinal (GI) endoscopy are not well known. The aim of this study was to evaluated the 95% effective dose (ED95) of butorphanol and sufentanil in GI endoscopy and compared their clinical efficacy, especially regarding the recovery time. Methods: The study was divided into two parts. For the first part, voluntary patients who needed GI endoscopy anesthesia were recruited to measure the ED95 of butorphanol and sufentanil needed to achieve successful sedation before GI endoscopy using the sequential method (the Dixon up-and-down method). The second part was a double-blind, randomized study. Two hundred cases of painless GI endoscopy patients were randomly divided into two groups (n= 100), including group B (butorphanol at the ED95 dose) and group S (sufentanil at the ED95 dose). Propofol was infused intravenously as the sedative in both groups. The recovery time, visual analogue scale (VAS) score, hand grip strength, fatigue severity scores, incidence of nausea and vomiting, and incidence of dizziness were recorded.Results: The ED95 of butorphanol for painless GI endoscopy was 9.07 μg/kg (95% confidence interval: 7.81-19.66 μg/kg). The ED95 of sufentanil was 0.1 μg/kg (95% CI, 0.079-0.422 μg/kg). Both butorphanol and sufentanil provided a good analgesic effect for GI endoscopy. However, the recovery time for butorphanol was significantly shorter than that for sufentanil (P < 0.05, group B vs. group S:21.26 ± 7.70 vs. 24.03 ± 7.80 min).Conclusions: Butorphanol at 9.07μg/kg was more effective than sufentanil for GI endoscopy sedation and notably reduced the recovery time.Trial registration: Chinese Clinical Trail Registry (Registration number # ChiCTR1900022780; Date of Registration on April 25rd, 2019) http://www.chictr.org.cn/showproj.aspx?proj= 37972.

scholarly journals In vitro evaluation of marginal fit of zirconia-reinforced lithium silicate laminate veneers at two thicknesses using different CAD/CAM systems

2020 ◽  
Vol 23 (4) ◽  
pp. 9p
Author(s):  
Manar Ahmed El-Mahdy ◽  
Ahmed Khaled Aboelfadl ◽  
Marwa Mohamed Wahsh
Keyword(s):  
In Vitro Study ◽  
Lithium Silicate ◽  
Milling Machine ◽  
Marginal Fit ◽  
Cad Cam ◽  
Marginal Discrepancy ◽  
Post Hoc ◽  
Laminate Veneers ◽  
Cam Systems

ABSTRACTObjective: The purpose of this in vitro study was to evaluate the marginal fit of laminate veneers made of zirconia-reinforced lithium silicate with two thicknesses using different CAD/CAM systems. Material and methods: 42 Laminate veneers milled from zirconia-reinforced lithium silicate were divided into three main groups according to milling machine used into: group X5, laminate veneers fabricated by inLab MCX5 milling machine; group CM, laminate veneers fabricated by Ceramill motion 2; and group XL, laminate veneers fabricated by inLab MCXL. Each group was divided into two subgroups according to veneer thickness into: subgroup I, 0.5 mm thickness laminate veneers and subgroup II, 0.3 mm thickness laminate veneers. The marginal fit was measured using stereomicroscope. The results were tabulated and statistically analyzed using two-way ANOVA test followed by Tukey’s post hoc test. Comparisons of main and simple effects were done utilizing Bonferroni correction (P ? 0.05). Results: The mean (±SD) highest marginal discrepancy was recorded in subgroup BII at 85.45±1.82 µm while the least mean marginal discrepancy was recorded in subgroup AI 71.24±2.64 µm. Conclusion: Both thicknesses (0.5 mm thickness and 0.3 mm thickness) and all tested CAD/CAM systems produced zirconia-reinforced lithium silicate laminate veneers with clinically acceptable marginal gaps; however, the closed CAD/CAM systems produced veneers with superior marginal fit than open systems at 0.3 mm thickness. The CAD/CAM system with the 5-axis milling machine produced the best marginal fit with 0.5 mm thickness. KEYWORDS Marginal fit; Zirconia-reinforced lithium silicate; Laminate veneers; CAD/CAM; Milling machines. RESUMOObjetivo: O objetivo deste estudo in vitro foi avaliar a adaptação marginal de facetas laminadas de silicato de lítio reforçado com zircônia com duas espessuras, utilizando diferentes sistemas CAD / CAM. Material e métodos: 42 facetas laminadas fresadas a partir de silicato de lítio reforçado com zircônia foram divididos em três grupos principais de acordo com a fresadora usada em: grupo X5, facetas laminadas fabricados pela fresadora inLab MCX5; grupo CM, facetas laminadas fabricados por Ceramill motion 2; e grupo XL, facetas laminadas fabricados pelo inLab MCXL. Cada grupo foi dividido em dois subgrupos, de acordo com a espessura do laminado, em: subgrupo I, facetas laminadas com 0,5 mm de espessura e subgrupo II, facetas laminadas com espessura de 0,3 mm. A adaptação marginal foi medida usando estereomicroscópio. Os resultados foram tabulados e analisados estatisticamente usando o teste ANOVA de dois fatores seguido pelo teste post hoc de Tukey. Comparações dos efeitos principais e simples foram realizadas utilizando a correção de Bonferroni (P ?0,05). Resultados: A maior discrepância marginal média (± DP) foi registrada no subgrupo BII em 85,45 ± 1,82 µm, enquanto a menor discrepância marginal média foi registrada no subgrupo AI 71,24 ± 2,64 µm. Conclusão: Ambas as espessuras (0,5 mm e 0,3 mm) e todos os sistemas CAD / CAM testados produziram facetas de laminado de silicato de lítio reforçadas com zircônia com lacunas clinicamente aceitáveis. No entanto, os sistemas CAD / CAM fechados produziam facetas com adaptação marginal superior aos sistemas abertos com 0,3 mm de espessura. O sistema CAD / CAM com a fresadora de 5 eixos produziu a melhor adaptação marginal com 0,5 mm de espessura.PALAVRAS-CHAVE Adaptação marginal; Silicato de lítio reforçado com zircônia; Facetas laminados; CAD / CAM; Fresadoras.

scholarly journals A Double Blind Randomized Clinical Trail: Comparing Lactobacillus plantarum 299v with Placebo in treating irritable bowel syndrome patients

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Moeen-ul- haq ◽  
Fazl Ullah ◽  
Muhammad Kamran Hassan ◽  
Ahmad Nawaz Babar ◽  
Anwar Ullah
Keyword(s):  
Irritable Bowel Syndrome ◽  
Lactobacillus Plantarum ◽  
Colonic Mucosa ◽  
Clinical Symptoms ◽  
Gastrointestinal Disease ◽  
Double Blind ◽  
Clinical Trail ◽  
Randomized Control ◽  
And Gender ◽  
Irritable Bowel

Abstract Irritable bowel syndrome (IBS) is a gastrointestinal disease of intestinal mobility. IBS present with variable clinical symptoms making the treatment difficult. IBS is quiet prevalent around the globe with different frequency. Differences in frequency and gender is due to diet habit. It is less frequent where diary product and vegetable are frequently consumed as compared to those who consumed meat. Lactobacillus plantarum 299v (L. plantarum 299v) is the most widely studied strain in the IBS patients. It is resistant to the actions of intestinal acids and bile, colonizes the human colonic mucosa and is non-pathogenic in nature. The efficacy of Lactobacillus plantarum 299v L is different in different study. The present study was designed to find the efficacy of Lactobacillus plantarum 299v in comparison to placebo in randomized control trial.

scholarly journals Assessment of pain between sedated and unsedated colonoscopy: Double-blind randomized clinical trail

2021 ◽  
Vol 26 (1) ◽  
pp. 36
Author(s):  
Alireza Shavakhi ◽  
Ahmad Shavakhi ◽  
Mahsa Khodadoostan ◽  
SeidJavad Shariaat Nabavi ◽  
Sina Sadeghian ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Double Blind ◽  
Clinical Trail
Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document