Aesthetic Restoration using Direct Composite Resin

Clinical Dentistry ◽

10.33882/clinicaldent.14.27146 ◽

2020 ◽

Author(s):

Anudeep S. Myakal

Keyword(s):

Minimally Invasive ◽

Key Words ◽

Composite Resin ◽

Promising Result ◽

Treatment Plan ◽

Minimally Invasive Treatment ◽

Invasive Treatment ◽

Composite Resin Restoration ◽

The Aesthetic ◽

Composite Restoration

Anterior Crown fractures are common among schoolchildren. This will impact on their functional, aesthetic and psychological behaviour, as the aesthetic zone clinician must propose the exact and minimally invasive treatment plan. Achieving promising result in both aesthetic and strength is the greatest desire for the patient as well as for parents. This is the case of fractured permanent maxillary central incisors treated using Direct Composite Resin Restoration. Key Words: Anterior Crown, Fracture, Aesthetic, Maxillary central incisors, composite restoration

Download Full-text

Percutaneous Minimally Invasive Treatment for the Trigeminal Neuralgia: A Review

Journal of Anesthesia and Perioperative Medicine ◽

10.24015/japm.2015.0023 ◽

2015 ◽

Vol 2 (3) ◽

pp. 167-174

Author(s):

Xiang-Fei Guo ◽

Jun Ma

Keyword(s):

Trigeminal Neuralgia ◽

Minimally Invasive ◽

Minimally Invasive Treatment ◽

Invasive Treatment

Download Full-text

EAU, AUA and NICE Guidelines on Surgical and Minimally Invasive Treatment of Benign Prostate Hyperplasia: A Critical Appraisal of the Guidelines Using the AGREE-II Tool

Urologia Internationalis ◽

10.1159/000517675 ◽

2021 ◽

pp. 1-10

Author(s):

Dmitry Enikeev ◽

Vincent Misrai ◽

Enrique Rijo ◽

Roman Sukhanov ◽

Denis Chinenov ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Minimally Invasive ◽

Treatment Options ◽

Stakeholder Involvement ◽

Minimally Invasive Treatment ◽

Invasive Treatment ◽

Agree Ii ◽

Prostate Hyperplasia ◽

Assessment Score ◽

Nice Guideline ◽

Agree Ii Tool

Objective: To critically appraise the methodological rigour of the clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) vis-à-vis BPH surgery as used by specialist research associations in the US, Europe and UK, and to compare whether the guidelines cover all or only some of the available treatments. Methods: The current guidelines issued by the EUA, AUA and NICE associations have been analyzed by 4 appraisers using the AGREE-II instrument. We also compared the recommendations given in the guidelines for surgical and minimally invasive treatment to find out which of these CPGs include most of the available treatment options. Results: According to the AGREE II tool, the median scores of domains were: domain 1 scope and purpose 66.7%, domain 2 stakeholder involvement 50.0%, domain 3 rigor of development 65.1%, domain 4 clarity of presentation 80.6%, domain 5 applicability 33.3%, domain 6 editorial independence 72.9%. The overall assessment according to AGREE II is 83.3%. The NICE guideline scored highest on 5 out of 6 domains and the highest overall assessment score (91.6%). The EAU guideline scored lowest on 4 out of 6 domains and has the lowest overall assessment score (79.1%). Conclusions: The analyzed CPGs comprehensively highlight the minimally invasive and surgical treatment options for BPH. According to the AGREE II tool, the domains for clarity of presentation and editorial independence received the highest scores. The stakeholder involvement and applicability domains were ranked as the lowest. Improving the CPG in these domains may help to improve the clinical utility and applicability of CPGs.

Download Full-text