Association of Loss Aversion, Personality Traits, Depressive, Anxious, and Suicidal Symptoms: Systematic Review.

OBJECTIVE: Loss aversion is defined as the individual perception of losses with a more significant impact than the gains of the same proportion, where people would be more sensitive to the possibility of losing objects or money than to the possibility of winning, even the same quantities. However, studies relating to loss aversion and psychological factors are still incipient. The aim of the present literature review was to identify and analyze the results of studies that investigated loss aversion regarding personality traits and symptoms of depression, anxiety, and suicidal tendencies. METHOD: A systematic review was done through PUBMED and Scopus databases. Descriptors were defined according to each database specificities. RESULTS: At first, 103 articles were encountered. After evaluation of the inclusion and exclusion criteria, there were a total of 14 remaining articles that were group together into six categories related to loss aversion, depression, anxiety, suicidal tendencies, and personality. CONCLUSIONS: The present study contributes to the literature mapping in the Behavioural Economics field. However, discrepancies were found among the studies, which made it difficult to acquire more conclusive findings.

Traffic accidents, maxillofacial injuries and risk factors: A systematic review of observational studies.

AIM: This study aimed to evaluate the scientific evidence regarding the risk factors for maxillofacial injuries among victims of traffic accidents. METHOD: A systematic review of articles published until February 2017 was carried out in the following databases: PubMed, Web of Science, Scopus, and Cochrane Library. Studies were selected by two independent reviewers (Ï° = 0.841). The risk of bias in the selected studies was assessed using an adapted version of the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale for observational studies. RESULTS: A total of 2703 records were found, of which only three articles fulfilled the inclusion criteria and were analyzed, including 422 244 patients. The male/female ratio ranged from 3.4: 1 to 6: 1. All eligible studies performed the multivariate statistical analysis. Eleven risk factors for maxillofacial traumas were identified: victim's gender (P < 0.05), age group (P < 0.05), residence region (P < 0.05), impact characteristics (P < 0.05), increased net change in velocity due to collision (P < 0.05), increase in occupant's height (P < 0.05), nonuse of protective equipment (P < 0.05), type of accident (P < 0.05), time of occurrence (P < 0.05), lesion severity (P < 0.05), and occurrence of concomitant lesions (P < 0.05). CONCLUSION: The results suggest that sociodemographic characteristics, as well as those related to the collision patterns and circumstances of traffic accidents, may influence the occurrence of maxillofacial injuries. However, the results should be interpreted with caution due to the high heterogeneity among studies.

Rotary Instrument or Piezoelectric for the Removal of Third Molars: a Meta-Analysis.

AIM: The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to compare, in the lower third molar surgery, the osteotomy techniques with rotary instruments and piezoelectric motors. METHODS: An electronic search was conducted using the following databases: Pubmed, Web of Science, and the Cochrane Oral Health Group Trials Register. Inclusion criteria were: studies in humans, randomized or nonrandomized, comparing the extraction of third molars that required osteotomy and/or odontosection with rotary instrument and osteotomy and/or odontosection with piezoelectric motor assistance. The analysis and inclusion of articles was performed by two reviewers independently. An evaluation of the quality of articles and data extraction was carried out. RESULTS: From a total of nine hundred seventy four (974) trials, eleven articles were included in the qualitative analysis, and seven were included in the quantitative analysis. Rotary instruments were faster than the piezoelectric surgery (95 % CI 0.34 to 1.16). The piezoelectric surgery showed better results when compared with roatry instruments when trismus was assessed in 2 (95 % CI 0.65 to 1.69), 3 (95 % CI 0.63 to 1.67) and 5 (95 % CI 0.03 to 2.26) days after surgery. Seven days after surgery, there were no differences between the techniques (95 % CI (-0.022) to (-1.49)). CONCLUSION: The piezoelectric surgery was effective in reducing pain, swelling and trismus in third molar surgery, but the same requires greater surgical time than the rotary instruments.