Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Mostrar: 20 | 50 | 100
Resultados 1 - 3 de 3
Filtrar
Más filtros












Base de datos
Intervalo de año de publicación
1.
Br J Oral Maxillofac Surg ; 55(8): 763-769, 2017 Oct.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-28552609

RESUMEN

We describe the techniques available for retention of implant-supported prostheses: bar-clips, O-rings, and magnets. We present reported preferences and, although this is limited by the heterogeneity of methods used and patients studied, we hope we have identified the best retention systems for maxillofacial prosthetic implants. If practitioners know the advantages and disadvantages of each system, they can choose the most natural and comfortable prosthesis. We searched the PubMed and Scopus databases, and restricted our search to papers published 2001-13. MeSH terms used were Maxillofacial prosthesis and Craniofacial prosthesis OR Craniofacial prostheses. We found a total of 2630 papers, and after duplicates had been removed we analysed the rest and found 25 papers for review. Of these, 12 were excluded because they were case reports or non-systematic reviews. Of the remaining 13, 10 described group analyses and seemed appropriate to find practitioner's choices, as cited in the abstract (n=1611 prostheses). Three papers did not mention the type of prosthetic connection used, so were excluded. The most popular choices for different conditions were analysed, though the sites and retention systems were not specified in all 10 papers. The bar-clip system was the most used in auricular (6/10 papers) and nasal prostheses (4/10). For the orbital region, 6/10 favoured magnets. Non-osseointegrated mechanical or adhesive retention techniques are the least expensive and have no contraindications. When osseointegrated implants are possible, each facial region has a favoured system. The choice of system is influenced by two factors: standard practice and the abilities of the maxillofacial surgeon and maxillofacial prosthetist.


Asunto(s)
Prótesis Maxilofacial , Oseointegración , Retención de la Prótesis/instrumentación , Humanos , Diseño de Prótesis
2.
J Biol Regul Homeost Agents ; 31(1): 147-152, 2017.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-28337884

RESUMEN

Orofacial pain is associated with peripheral and central sensitization of trigeminal nociceptive neurons. Nerve injury results in release of chemical mediators that contribute to persistent pain conditions. The activation of the transient receptor potential vanilloid 1 (TRPV1), promotes release of calcitonin gene-related peptide (CGRP) and substance P (SP) from trigeminal nerve terminals. CGRP and SP contribute to the development of peripheral hyperalgesia. The expression of SP and CGRP by primary afferent neurons is rapidly increased in response to peripheral inflammation. CGRP receptor activation promotes activation of AMPA receptors, leading to increased firing of neurons which is reflected as central sensitization. In this study we investigated whether inferior alveolar nerve (IAN) injury influences AMPA receptors, CGRP, SP and TRPV1 expression in the trigeminal ganglion (TG). The relative expression of the protein of interest from naive rats was compared to those from injured rats and animals that received low level laser therapy (LLLT). IAN-injury did not change expression of GluA1, GluA2 and CGRP, but increased the expression of TRPV1 and SP. LLLT increases GluA1 and GluA2 expression and decreases TVPV1, SP and CGRP. These results, together with previous behavioral data, suggest that IAN-injury induced changes in the proteins analyzed, which could impact on nociceptive threshold. These data may help to understand the molecular mechanisms of pain sensitization in the TG.


Asunto(s)
Traumatismos del Nervio Facial/radioterapia , Regulación de la Expresión Génica/efectos de la radiación , Terapia por Luz de Baja Intensidad , Nervio Mandibular/efectos de la radiación , Ganglio del Trigémino/efectos de la radiación , Animales , Péptido Relacionado con Gen de Calcitonina/genética , Péptido Relacionado con Gen de Calcitonina/metabolismo , Traumatismos del Nervio Facial/genética , Traumatismos del Nervio Facial/metabolismo , Traumatismos del Nervio Facial/patología , Masculino , Nervio Mandibular/metabolismo , Nervio Mandibular/patología , Neuronas Aferentes/metabolismo , Neuronas Aferentes/patología , Neuronas Aferentes/efectos de la radiación , Estimulación Luminosa/métodos , Ratas , Ratas Sprague-Dawley , Receptores AMPA/genética , Receptores AMPA/metabolismo , Transducción de Señal , Sustancia P/genética , Sustancia P/metabolismo , Canales Catiónicos TRPV/genética , Canales Catiónicos TRPV/metabolismo , Ganglio del Trigémino/lesiones , Ganglio del Trigémino/metabolismo
3.
Oral Dis ; 13(3): 270-3, 2007 May.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-17448207

RESUMEN

AIM: The aim of the present study was to clinically evaluate the oral mucosa lesions of leprosy patients during and after multi-drug therapy. METHODS: Clinical examination, medical and dental history examination was performed in 100 leprosy patients. RESULTS: The results revealed that 71 patients, 50 men and 21 women, exibited oral lesions. The most frequent lesions were: fissured tongue (18 cases), inflammatory papillary hyperplasia (16 cases), chronic atrophic candidiasis (10 cases), fibroma (10 cases), erythematous candidiasis (eight cases), and traumatic ulceration (seven cases). CONCLUSION: We conclude that leprosy-related lesions are not present in patients undergoing treatment for leprosy, probably due to response to multidrug therapy.


Asunto(s)
Lepra/complicaciones , Enfermedades de la Boca/etiología , Anciano , Brasil , Estudios Transversales , Dermatosis Facial/etiología , Femenino , Humanos , Leprostáticos/uso terapéutico , Lepra/tratamiento farmacológico , Masculino , Persona de Mediana Edad , Mucosa Bucal/patología
SELECCIÓN DE REFERENCIAS
DETALLE DE LA BÚSQUEDA
...