1,720,968 research outputs found
How often should implant-supported full-arch dental prostheses be removed for supportive peri-implant care to maintain peri-implant health? A systematic review
No full textPurpose: To systematically screen and summarise the available literature on when and how often it is advisable to perform supportive peri-implant care on implant-supported full-arch dental prostheses to maintain peri-implant health. Materials and methods: The authors employed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses statement and the Population, Intervention, Comparison and Outcomes tool. A literature search was conducted on PubMed for randomised controlled trials, controlled clinical trials and cohort studies, reporting results on supportive peri-implant care for full-arch dental prostheses with a follow-up period of at least 1 year. The studies were selected in a blind process with an agreement rate of 100%. For all the included studies, quality assessment was performed according to the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions. Results: The application of the search terms on PubMed led to the selection of 915 results. Only 11 studies were included in the review. Eight of these reported the frequency of supportive peri-implant care, and three detailed the procedures adopted. The number of patients included ranged from 15 to 85, with a mean age from 60.4 to 68.4 years. None of the included studies were judged to be at low risk of bias. Conclusions: Removal of implant-supported prostheses is a crucial aspect in the long-term care of patients rehabilitated with full-arch restorations. Although no specific indications can be drawn with respect to the frequency at which supportive peri-implant care should be delivered and the regime used to do so, practitioners should consider performing professional oral hygiene measures every 6 months and removing prostheses at least once per year. All interventions should be tailored to the patient's risk profile and characteristics
Efficacy of Xanthan‐Based Chlorhexidine Gel in Peri‐Implant Mucositis Treatment: A Split‐Mouth Randomized Clinical Trial
Full text linkObjectives: To investigate the potential benefits of Xanthan-based chlorhexidine gel application in addition to professional mechanical plaque removal (PMPR) in the treatment of peri-implant mucositis (PM). Material and methods: Subjects diagnosed with PM were consecutively included in this randomized split-mouth study. All participants received a single session of PMPR using titanium curettes, followed by the application of an air-polishing glycine powder device. Implants allocated to the Test group were additionally treated with local delivery of Xanthan-based chlorhexidine gel. Clinical evaluation was performed at T0 (i.e., baseline), at 30 (T1), 90 (T2) and 180 days (T3) after treatment, while treatment success was evaluated at T2 and T3. Change in bleeding on probing (BoP) was considered as primary outcome measure. A logistic multivariate regression model was developed to explore the predictive role of implant and patient-level variables on primary outcome measure. Results: Fifty-nine patients (mean age: 65.4 ± 8.7 years; 54.2% male; 88.1% non-smokers) and 182 implants completed the study. At T1, only the Test group displayed a significant reduction in BoP (p 0.05). T2 Treatment success as well as the frequency distribution of complete (BoP = 0) and partial (BoP ≤ 1, ≤ 2, ≤ 3) disease resolution did not significantly differ between groups (p > 0.05). Multiple regression model revealed that smoking (p = 0.008), and implant position (i.e., premolar p = 0.009) did significantly affect the primary outcome measure. Conclusion: The adjunctive use of XanCHX gel did not result in any statistically significant clinical benefit compared to PMPR alone in the treatment of PM up to 6 months, despite the reported clinical positive effects within the first month after treatment
Going Beyond Counting First Authors in Author Co-citation Analysis
Full text linkThe present study examines one of the fundamental aspects of author co-citation analysis (ACA) - the way co-citation
counts are defined. Co-citation counting provides the data on which all subsequent statistical analyses and mappings
are based, and we compare ACA results based on two different types of co-citation counting - the traditional type that
only counts the first one among a cited work's authors on the one hand and a non-traditional type that takes into
account the first 5 authors of a cited work on the other hand. Results indicate that the picture produced through this non-traditional author co-citation counting contains more coherent author groups and is therefore considerably clearer. However, this picture represents fewer specialties in the research field being studied than that produced through the traditional first-author co-citation counting when the same number of top-ranked authors is selected and analyzed. Reasons for these effects are discussed
Variations on the Author
Full text link“Variations on the Author” discusses two of Eduardo Coutinho’s recent films (Um Dia na Vida, from 2010, and Últimas Conversas, posthumously released in 2015) and their contribution to the general question of documentary authorship. The director’s filmography is characterized by a consistent yet self-effacing form of authorial self-inscription: Coutinho often features as an interviewer that rather than express opinions propels discourses; an interviewer that is good at listening. This mode of self-inscription characterizes him as an author who is not expressive but who is nonetheless markedly present on the screen. In Um Dia na Vida, however, Coutinho is completely absent form the image, while Últimas Conversas, on the contrary, includes a confessional prologue that moves the director from the margins to the center of his films. This article examines the ways in which these works stand out in the filmography of a director who offers new insights into the notion of cinematic authorship
Appropriate Similarity Measures for Author Cocitation Analysis
Full text linkWe provide a number of new insights into the methodological discussion about author cocitation analysis. We first argue that the use of the Pearson correlation for measuring the similarity between authors’ cocitation profiles is not very satisfactory. We then discuss what kind of similarity measures may be used as an alternative to the Pearson correlation. We consider three similarity measures in particular. One is the well-known cosine. The other two similarity measures have not been used before in the bibliometric literature. Finally, we show by means of an example that our findings have a high practical relevance.information science;Pearson correlation;cosine;similarity measure;author cocitation analysis
Dispelling the Myths Behind First-author Citation Counts
Full text linkWe conducted a full-scale evaluative citation analysis study of scholars in the XML research field to explore just how different from each other author rankings resulting from different citation counting methods actually are, and to demonstrate the capability of emerging data and tools on the Web in supporting more realistic citation counting methods. Our results contest some common arguments for the continued
use of first-author citation counts in the evaluation of scholars, such as high correlations between author rankings by first-author citation counts and other citation
counting methods, and high costs of using more realistic citation counting methods that are not well-supported by the ISI databases. It is argued that increasingly available digital full text research papers make it possible for citation analysis studies to go beyond what the ISI databases have directly supported and to employ more
sophisticated methods
koamabayili/VECTRON-author-checklist: VECTRON author checklist
No full textWe have done our best to complete the author checklist relating to the use of animals in the hut study. Note that the objective for the hut study was to evaluate the IRS treatment applications for residual efficacy against Anopheles mosquitoes, including the local An. coluzzii mosquito population. Cows were only used to attract mosquitoes into the huts and no tests were carried out directly on the cows. The author checklist is intended for use with studies where experiments are carried out on animals, which is why we have had such difficulty in completing this for the hut study, as many of the questions do not relate to how the cows were used
Author-wise bibliometric analysis based on entropy.
No full textAuthor-wise bibliometric analysis based on entropy.</p
- …
