Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Show: 20 | 50 | 100
Results 1 - 3 de 3
Filter
1.
Maxillofacial Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery ; : 40-2020.
Article in English | WPRIM | ID: wpr-894980

ABSTRACT

Background@#Hyaluronic acid (HA) is well known to exert an anti-inflammatory effect during oral wound healing and is commonly applied after tooth extraction. However, no double-blind randomized controlled study comparing two hyaluronate mouthwash products has been conducted so far. The aim of this study was to comparatively analyze the efficacy of Mucobarrier® and Aloclair® in terms of clinical symptoms. @*Results@#A total of 112 patients were randomly assigned to assess the degree of discomfort, pain reduction, redness, burning sensation, and swelling between two groups on the day of surgery and 7 days later in a double blind test, with a total 56 Aloclair patients and 56 Mucobarrier patients. There was no statistically significant difference in the overall discomfort, degree of pain reduction, redness, burning sensation, and swelling between the Mucobarrier and Aloclair groups. @*Conclusion@#The local application of hyaluronic acid mouth wash after wisdom tooth extraction is beneficial in reducing overall discomfort and pain reduction, and the clinical utility of Mucobarrier® is no different from Aloclair®.Trial registrationInstitutional Review Board of Yonsei University College of Dentistry, 2-2018-0036. Registered 10 September 2018—prospectively registered, https://eirb.yuhs.ac/

2.
Maxillofacial Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery ; : 40-2020.
Article in English | WPRIM | ID: wpr-902684

ABSTRACT

Background@#Hyaluronic acid (HA) is well known to exert an anti-inflammatory effect during oral wound healing and is commonly applied after tooth extraction. However, no double-blind randomized controlled study comparing two hyaluronate mouthwash products has been conducted so far. The aim of this study was to comparatively analyze the efficacy of Mucobarrier® and Aloclair® in terms of clinical symptoms. @*Results@#A total of 112 patients were randomly assigned to assess the degree of discomfort, pain reduction, redness, burning sensation, and swelling between two groups on the day of surgery and 7 days later in a double blind test, with a total 56 Aloclair patients and 56 Mucobarrier patients. There was no statistically significant difference in the overall discomfort, degree of pain reduction, redness, burning sensation, and swelling between the Mucobarrier and Aloclair groups. @*Conclusion@#The local application of hyaluronic acid mouth wash after wisdom tooth extraction is beneficial in reducing overall discomfort and pain reduction, and the clinical utility of Mucobarrier® is no different from Aloclair®.Trial registrationInstitutional Review Board of Yonsei University College of Dentistry, 2-2018-0036. Registered 10 September 2018—prospectively registered, https://eirb.yuhs.ac/

3.
Yonsei Medical Journal ; : 1028-1035, 2019.
Article in English | WPRIM | ID: wpr-762057

ABSTRACT

PURPOSE: To validate and update a nomogram for predicting ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) upstaging in preoperative biopsy. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Medical records of 444 preoperative DCIS patients were evaluated and used to validate a previous version of the Severance nomogram for predicting DCIS upstaging in preoperative biopsy. Patients were divided into two groups according to the final postoperative pathology. Univariate and multivariate analyses with the chi-square test, Student's t-test, and binary logistic regression method identified new significant variables. The updated nomogram was evaluated with the C-index and Hosmer—Lemeshow goodness of fit test. RESULTS: The area under a receiver operating characteristic curve for comparison with the previous nomogram was 0.48. In postoperative pathology, the pure DCIS and invasive cancer groups comprised 345 and 99 cases, respectively. Approximately 22.3% of patients preoperatively diagnosed with DCIS were upstaged to invasive cancer. Significant variables in the univariate analysis were operation type, human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 overexpression, comedo necrosis, sonographic mass, mammographic mass, preoperative biopsy method, and suspicious microinvasion in preoperative biopsy. In multivariate analysis, operation type, sonographic mass, mammographic mass, and suspicious microinvasion were risk factors for upstaging. The updated model with these variables showed moderate discrimination and was appropriate in the calibration test. CONCLUSION: The previous nomogram did not effectively discriminate upstaging of preoperative DCIS in an independent cohort. An updated version of the nomogram appears to provide more accurate information for predicting preoperative DCIS upstaging.


Subject(s)
Humans , Biopsy , Breast Neoplasms , Breast , Calibration , Carcinoma, Ductal , Carcinoma, Intraductal, Noninfiltrating , Cohort Studies , Discrimination, Psychological , Logistic Models , Medical Records , Methods , Multivariate Analysis , Necrosis , Nomograms , Pathology , ErbB Receptors , Risk Factors , ROC Curve , Ultrasonography
SELECTION OF CITATIONS
SEARCH DETAIL