Age and Incidence of Cochlear Implantation in the Pediatric Population With Congenital Bilateral Profound Hearing Loss.

OBJECTIVES: The current study characterizes age and incidence of cochlear implantation among qualifying children with congenital bilateral profound hearing loss in the U.S. STUDY DESIGN: Deidentified cochlear implantation data were acquired from prospectively collected patient registries from two cochlear implant (CI) manufacturers (Cochlear Americas and Advanced Bionics). Children <36 months old were assumed to have congenital bilateral profound sensorineural hearing loss. SETTING: U.S. CI centers. PATIENTS: Children <36 months old who received CIs. INTERVENTIONS: Cochlear implantation. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Age at implantation and incidence. RESULTS: A total of 4,236 children <36 months old underwent cochlear implantation from 2015 to 2019. The median age at implantation was 16 months (interquartile range, 12-24 mo) and did not change significantly during the 5-year study period ( p = 0.09). Patients residing closer to CI centers ( p = 0.03) and treated at higher-volume centers ( p = 0.008) underwent implantation at a younger age. Bilateral simultaneous implantation increased from 38% to 53% of CI surgeries in 2015 and 2019, respectively. Children who received bilateral simultaneous CIs were younger compared with those receiving unilateral or bilateral sequential CIs (median, 14 versus 18 mo; p < 0.001). The incidence of cochlear implantation increased from 7,648 per 100,000 person-years in 2015 to 9,344 in 2019 ( p < 0.001). CONCLUSION: Although the incidence of pediatric CI recipients and the frequency of bilateral simultaneous implantation increased over the study period, age at implantation did not change significantly and far exceeded current Food and Drug Administration (9 mo) and American Academy of Otolaryngology and Head and Neck Surgery position statement (6-12 mo) guidelines.

Evaluation of fracture resistance in aqueous environment under dynamic loading of lithium disilicate restorative systems for posterior applications. Part 2.

PURPOSE: The goals of part 2 of the study presented here were 1) to assess whether there is a difference in failure mode of different thicknesses (2.0, 1.5, 1.0, and 0.5 mm) of anatomically standardized full contour monolithic lithium disilicate restorations for posterior teeth, and 2) to assess if there is a difference among various crown thicknesses when these restorations are subjected to dynamic load forces common for posterior teeth. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Four groups (n = 10), each with a different thickness of anatomically appropriate all-ceramic crowns, were to be tested as established from the statistical analysis of the preliminary phase. Group 1: 2.0 mm; group 2: 1.5 mm; group 3: 1.0 mm; group 4: 0.5 mm. The specimens were adhesively luted to the corresponding die, and underwent dynamic cyclic loading (380 to 390 N) completely submerged in an aqueous environment until a failure was noted by graphic recording and continuous monitoring. RESULTS: There was a statistically significant difference of the fatigue cycles to failure among four groups (p < 0.001; Kruskal-Wallis test). The mean number of cycles to fail for 2.0 mm specimens was 17 times more than the mean number of cycles to fail for 1.0 mm specimens and 1.5 times more than the mean number of cycles to fail for 1.5 mm specimens. The 0.5 mm specimens failed with one cycle of loading. A qualitative characteristic noted among the 2.0 mm specimens was wear of the area of indenter contact followed by shearing of the material and/or crack propagation. CONCLUSION: Based on the findings of this study, it may be reasonable to consider a crown thickness of 1.5 mm or greater for clinical applications of milled monolithic lithium disilicate crowns for posterior single teeth.