12 research outputs found
Towards Laminar Bizjets
No full textThis abstract introduces works description performed by Dassault-Aviation on laminarity applied on Bizjet sector in the frame of Clean Sky 2 Program, as well as in ITD AIRFRAME than in SPD LPA. The abstract has been followed by presentation done during the AEC conference in Bordeaux, in February 2020.
This project has received funding from the Clean Sky 2 Joint Undertaking (JU) under grant agreement No 945583. The JU receives support from the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme and the Clean Sky 2 JU members other than the Union.
The results, opinions, conclusions, etc. presented in this work are those of the author(s) only and do not necessarily represent the position of the JU; the JU is not responsible for any use made of the information contained hereinNote the right LPA contract is GAM 2020-2021 but GAM 2018-2019 is only available in Zenodo sit
Comparison of Tooth Size Discrepancy of Three Main Ethnics in Malaysia with Bolton's Ratio
No full textThe objective of this study was to investigate the applicability of Bolton's ratios in orthodontic population of Malaysian main ethnics; Malay, Chinese and Indians. Ninety convenient samples consisting of 30 pre-orthodontic study casts from each ethnic that fits the inclusion criteria were selected. The greatest mesiodistal widths of each tooth from six to six for overall ratio and three to three for anterior ratio were measured using a digital callipers linked to Hamilton Arch Tooth System software to the nearest 0.01mm. Means of the ratios were calculated using Bolton analysis. One sample t-test statistic analysis was carried out to compare the means with Bolton values of anterior ratio and overall ratio and one-way ANOVA was used to analyze comparison between ethnic groups of the anterior ratio and the overall ratio with the level of statistical significance set at p < 0.05. However, there were no significant differences when comparing Bolton values with Chinese and Indian anterior and overall ratios. The Bolton standards could be applied to Malaysian Chinese, Indians and Malay's female. Subsequently, a specific standard should be used for the Malays orthodontic population.Article URL : http://www.ukm.my/jsm/pdf_files/SM-PDF-41-2-2012/17%20Aida%20Nur%20Ashikin.pd
Author Correction: Chemical signal is in the blend: bases of plant-pollinator encounter in a highly specialized interaction
No full textInternational audienceAn amendment to this paper has been published and can be accessed via a link at the top of the paper. Correction to: Scientific Reports https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-020-66655-w, published online 22 June 202
Chemical signal is in the blend: bases of plant-pollinator encounter in a highly specialized interaction
No full textAn Author Correction to this article was published on 09 November 2020International audienceIn several highly specialized plant-insect interactions, scent-mediated specificity of pollinator attraction is directed by the emission and detection of volatile organic compounds (VOCs). Although some plants engaged in such interactions emit singular compounds, others emit mixtures of VOCs commonly emitted by plants. We investigated the chemical ecological bases of host plant recognition in the nursery pollination mutualism between the dioecious Ficus carica and its specific pollinator Blastophaga psenes. Using Y-tube olfactometer tests, we show that B. psenes females are attracted by VOCs of receptive figs of both sexes and do not exhibit preference for VOCs of either male or female figs. Electrophysiological tests and chemical analysis revealed that of all the VOCs emitted by receptive figs, only five were found to be active on female antennae. Behavioural tests show that, in contrast to VOCs presented alone, only a blend with a particular proportion of four of these VOCs is as attractive as the odour of receptive figs, and that if there is a very small change in this blend proportion, the pollinator is no longer attracted. This study revealed that in highly specialized mutualistic interactions specificity could be mediated by a particular blend of common compounds emitted by plants
Open bite: Spectrum of treatment potentials and limitations
No full textTreatment of open bite malocclusion is complex and challenging because of the potential for relapse and the possibility of compromised esthetics. The aim of this article is to emphasize the importance of tailoring treatment to the specific individual characteristics and etiology of the open bite. The treatment approaches are discussed separately for early treatment of growing and non-growing patients. Treatment ranges from correction of etiologic habits to control of hyperdivergent growth and dentoalveolar vertical hyperplasia. Technological advances (plates and screws) have expanded the sphere of success, but long-term studies and controlled clinical trials are needed. Limitations of treatment include the persistence of known etiologic factors and initial growth pattern, the difficulty to accurately predict the individual course of development or the response to treatment, lack of knowledge of biological mechanisms behind open bite development, periodontal and mechanical considerations, and the increased risk of iatrogenic effects. Judgment of the individual conditions defining the malocclusion and non-heroic mechanics should guide the clinician in the attainment of stable and esthetic results. © 2013 Elsevier Inc.Ackerman JL, 1997, ANGLE ORTHOD, V67, P327; Al-Farra E, 2001, AM J ORTHOD DENTOFAC, V120, P427, DOI 10.1067-mod.2001.117910; ALTUNA G, 1985, ANGLE ORTHOD, V55, P251; BARBRE RE, 1991, ANGLE ORTHOD, V61, P93; Baumrind S, 1996, AM J ORTHOD DENTOFAC, V110, P311, DOI 10.1016-S0889-5406(96)80016-3; Beane R A Jr, 1999, Semin Orthod, V5, P275, DOI 10.1016-S1073-8746(99)80021-8; Brodie AG, 1942, ANGLE ORTHOD, V12, P109; CANGIALOSI TJ, 1984, AM J ORTHOD DENTOFAC, V85, P28, DOI 10.1016-0002-9416(84)90120-9; Chang YI, 1999, AM J ORTHOD DENTOFAC, V115, P29, DOI 10.1016-S0889-5406(99)70313-6; Cook DR, 2011, INT J PERIODONT REST, V31, P345; Cozza P, 2005, ANGLE ORTHOD, V75, P707; de Freitas MR, 2004, AM J ORTHOD DENTOFAC, V125, P78, DOI 10.1016-j.ajodo.2003.01.006; DELLINGER EL, 1986, AM J ORTHOD DENTOFAC, V89, P428, DOI 10.1016-0002-9416(86)90075-8; Einy Shmuel, 2011, Alpha Omegan, V104, P102; Erverdi N, 2004, ANGLE ORTHOD, V74, P381; FIELDS HW, 1984, AM J ORTHOD DENTOFAC, V85, P217, DOI 10.1016-0002-9416(84)90061-7; FRANKEL R, 1983, AM J ORTHOD DENTOFAC, V84, P54, DOI 10.1016-0002-9416(83)90148-3; Frankel R, 1983, MONOGRAPH U MICHIGAN, V14, P107; GHAFARI J, 1988, AM J ORTHOD DENTOFAC, V93, P126, DOI 10.1016-0889-5406(88)90289-2; Ghafari J, 1986, Quintessence Int, V17, P489; Ghafari JG, 2013, SEMIN ORTHOD, V19, P227, DOI 10.1053-j.sodo.2013.07.006; Ghafari JG, 2012, INTEGRATED CLIN ORTH, P195; Ghafari JG, 2005, J DENT RES, V84, P257; GIANELLY AA, 1989, AM J ORTHOD DENTOFAC, V95, P521, DOI 10.1016-0889-5406(89)90416-2; Graber TM, 1985, REMOVABLE ORTHODONTI; Greenlee GM, 2011, AM J ORTHOD DENTOFAC, V139, P154, DOI 10.1016-j.ajodo.2010.10.019; Hans MG, 2006, AM J ORTHOD DENTOFAC, V130, P183, DOI 10.1016-j.ajodo.2005.01.021; Hering K, 1999, ANGLE ORTHOD, V69, P470; HUANG GJ, 1990, ANGLE ORTHOD, V60, P17; Imai T, 2000, EUR J ORTHODONT, V22, P61, DOI 10.1093-ejo-22.1.61; Janson G, 2003, AM J ORTHOD DENTOFAC, V124, P265, DOI 10.1016-S0889-5406(03)00449-9; KALRA V, 1989, AM J ORTHOD DENTOFAC, V95, P467, DOI 10.1016-0889-5406(89)90410-1; Kanzaki R, 2007, AM J ORTHOD DENTOFAC, V131, P343, DOI 10.1016-j.ajodo.2006.04.025; Kikuchi M, 2002, PSYCHIAT CLIN NEUROS, V56, P329, DOI 10.1046-j.1440-1819.2002.01002.x; Kim YH, 2000, AM J ORTHOD DENTOFAC, V118, P43, DOI 10.1067-mod.2000.104830; KIM YH, 1974, AM J ORTHOD DENTOFAC, V65, P586, DOI 10.1016-0002-9416(74)90255-3; KIM YH, 1987, ANGLE ORTHOD, V57, P290; Klontz Herbert A, 2006, World J Orthod, V7, P336; Kucukkeles N, 1999, AM J ORTHOD DENTOFAC, V116, P555, DOI 10.1016-S0889-5406(99)70189-7; Kuroda S, 2007, AM J ORTHOD DENTOFAC, V131, P550, DOI 10.1016-j.ajodo.2006.12.001; Lentini-Oliveira D, 2007, COCHRANE DB SYST REV, V18; LOPEZGAVITO G, 1985, AM J ORTHOD DENTOFAC, V87, P175, DOI 10.1016-0002-9416(85)90038-7; Macari AT, 2012, ORTHOD CRANIOFAC RES, V15, P188, DOI 10.1111-j.1601-6343.2012.01540.x; Mason RM, 1979, ORAL MOTOR BEHAV IMP, P32; MELSEN B, 1989, AM J ORTHOD DENTOFAC, V96, P232, DOI 10.1016-0889-5406(89)90460-5; Moyers RE, 1988, HDB ORTHODONTICS; Park HS, 2006, AM J ORTHOD DENTOFAC, V130, P391, DOI 10.1016-j.ajodo.2005.07.014; PEARSON LE, 1986, ANGLE ORTHOD, V56, P205; Pedrin F, 2006, AM J ORTHOD DENTOFAC, V129, P418, DOI 10.1016-j.ajodo.2005.04.035; Proffit WR, 2006, AM J ORTHOD DENTOFAC, V129, pS47, DOI 10.1016-j.ajodo.2005.09.014; PROFFIT WR, 1983, J DENT RES, V62, P571, DOI 10.1177-00220345830620051301; PROFFIT WR, 1972, ARCH ORAL BIOL, V17, P555, DOI 10.1016-0003-9969(72)90071-4; Schulz SO, 2005, AM J ORTHOD DENTOFAC, V128, P326, DOI 10.1016-j.ajodo.2004.03.039; Shapiro PA, 2002, AM J ORTHOD DENTOFAC, V121, P566, DOI 10.1067-mod.2002.124175; Subtelny JD, 1975, T EUROPEAN ORTHODONT, P432; Subtelny J D, 1973, Angle Orthod, V43, P349; Umemori M, 1999, AM J ORTHOD DENTOFAC, V115, P166, DOI 10.1016-S0889-5406(99)70345-8; WORMS FW, 1971, AMER J ORTHODONTICS, V59, P589, DOI 10.1016-0002-9416(71)90005-4; Yao CCJ, 2005, ANGLE ORTHOD, V75, P7540
Correlation between the length and sagittal projection of the upper and lower jaw and the fundamental frequency
No full textObjective To report on the correlation between the length and projection of the upper and lower jaw and the fundamental frequency (F0). Study Design Prospective study. Materials and Methods A total of 45 healthy subjects were included in this study. The facial skeletal measurements included: SNA, SNB, ANB, angles that reflect the position of the maxilla and mandible in relation to the base of skull and to each others, length of mandible Co-Gn, and length of maxilla PNS-ANS. All subjects underwent acoustic analysis using VISI-PITCH IV. Results The means for F0 and habitual frequency were 220.75 + 40.01 Hz and 216.99 + 43.9 Hz, respectively. The means for SNA, SNB, and ANB were 80.753 ± 3.20, 77.409 ± 3.64, and 3.336 ± 2.57, respectively. The mean length of the mandible and maxilla were 104.28 + 7.94 and 50.29 + 3.94, respectively. In the total group, there was a moderate negative correlation between F0 and habitual frequency and the length of the mandible (r =-0.528 and-0.577, respectively). There was also a moderate negative correlation between F0 and habitual frequency and the length of the maxilla (r =-0.473 and-0.519, respectively). Similar findings were present after excluding the pubertal subjects. With respect to the other cephalometric measurements, the correlation was poor (r value andlt; 0.3). Conclusions There is a moderate negative correlation between the length of the upper and lower jaw and the average F0 and habitual frequency. The remaining facial sagittal projection parameters do not correlate with the average F0 and habitual frequency. © 2014 The Voice Foundation.Chanchareonsook N, 2006, CLEFT PALATE-CRAN J, V43, P477, DOI 10.1597-05-001R1.1; Chen JY, 2002, AM J ORTHOD DENTOFAC, V122, P470, DOI 10.1067-mod.2002.126730; Cheung L K, 2008, Ann R Australas Coll Dent Surg, V19, P133; Collins SA, 2000, ANIM BEHAV, V60, P773, DOI 10.1006-anbe.2000.1523; Cura N, 1997, EUR J ORTHODONT, V19, P691, DOI 10.1093-ejo-19.6.691; Dabbs JM, 1999, PERS INDIV DIFFER, V27, P801, DOI 10.1016-S0191-8869(98)00272-4; Ghafari J, 1998, AM J ORTHOD DENTOFAC, V113, P51, DOI 10.1016-S0889-5406(98)70276-8; Hamdan AL, 2012, J VOICE, V26, P144, DOI 10.1016-j.jvoice.2011.01.011; Illing HM, 1998, EUR J ORTHODONT, V20, P501, DOI 10.1093-ejo-20.5.501; Jorge TM, 2009, J CRANIOFAC SURG, V20, P161, DOI 10.1097-SCS.0b013e3181945a64; KAHANE JC, 1982, J SPEECH HEAR RES, V25, P446; KUNZEL HJ, 1989, PHONETICA, V46, P117; LASS NJ, 1978, J ACOUST SOC AM, V63, P1218, DOI 10.1121-1.381808; LIEBERMAN P, 1962, J ACOUST SOC AM, V34, P922, DOI 10.1121-1.1918222; Lim M, 2006, J VOICE, V20, P46, DOI 10.1016-j.jvoice.2004.09.003; Marunick MT, 2000, J VOICE, V14, P82, DOI 10.1016-S0892-1997(00)80097-1; McComb RW, 2011, J ORAL MAXIL SURG, V69, P2226, DOI 10.1016-j.joms.2011.02.142; Moorrees CFA, 2006, RADIOGRAPHIC CEPHALO, P153; NELSON C, 1993, AM J ORTHOD DENTOFAC, V104, P153, DOI 10.1016-S0889-5406(05)81005-4; Newman SR, 2000, J VOICE, V14, P72, DOI 10.1016-S0892-1997(00)80096-X; Pereira V, 2008, CLEFT PALATE-CRAN J, V45, P353, DOI 10.1597-07-042.1; Peterson M, 1997, ACTA U OUL D, V401, P19; Proffit WR, 2007, CONT ORTHODONTICS, P27; Roers F, 2009, J ACOUST SOC AM, V125, P503, DOI 10.1121-1.3026326; Satoh K, 2004, CLEFT PALATE-CRAN J, V41, P355, DOI 10.1597-02-153.1; Sherer KR, 1979, SOCIAL MARKERS SPEE, P147; Sperber GH, 2006, SEMIN ORTHOD, V12, P4, DOI 10.1053-j.sodo.2005.10.003; Steiner CC, 1960, AM J ORTHOD, V46, P721, DOI 10.1016-0002-9416(60)90145-7; Trudgill Peter, 1974, SOCIAL DIFFERENTIATI; Tulloch JFC, 1997, AM J ORTHOD DENTOFAC, V111, P391, DOI 10.1016-S0889-5406(97)80021-2; vanDommelen WA, 1995, LANG SPEECH, V38, P267; Webster T, 1996, AM J ORTHOD DENTOFAC, V110, P46, DOI 10.1016-S0889-5406(96)70086-00
Correspondence between subjective and linear measurements of the palatal airway on lateral cephalometric radiographs
No full textObjective: To evaluate the correlation between and significance of 2 methods of palatal airway assessment on lateral cephalographs. Design: Diagnostic lateral cephalometric imaging study that took place from January 1, 2006, to December 31, 2007. Setting: American University of Beirut Medical Center. Patients: Children with chronic mouth breathing referred by a pediatric otolaryngologist for cephalometric evaluation by participating orthodontists. Main Outcome Measures: Two distances were measured on the digitized lateral cephalographs between the adenoid and soft palate: the shortest adenoid distance (SAD) and the most convex adenoid distance (CAD). The palatal airway was assessed on a grade-1 to grade-3 scale independently by the referring otolaryngologist and an orthodontist. Results: Atotal of 200 children were included in the study (127 boys and 73 girls; mean age, 6 years; age range, 1.71-12.62 years). High correlations were observed between the airway ratings gathered by both examiners (r = 0.96) and between SAD and CAD (r = 0.92). Significant correlations were noted between the palatal airway grade and the SAD and CAD measurements (r = -0.73 and r = -0.79, respectively). Shortest adenoid distance measures of 2mmor less corresponded mostly to grade 3 obstruction and were more prevalent in patients younger than 6 years. Age was inversely proportional to both the grade and SAD (P.001). Conclusions: Both methods are reliable for assessment of airway obstruction by the adenoid. Because SAD and CADare highly correlated, we recommend the use of SAD as a more readily identifiable distance on cephalometric radiographs. Removal of adenoids when SAD is less than 2 mm may be indicated because this condition reflects a severe airway obstruction associated with potential changes in dentofacial structure. ©2010 American Medical Association. All rights reserved.Angle EH., 1907, TREATMENT MALOCCLUSI; Chidiac J J, 2002, Orthod Craniofac Res, V5, P104, DOI 10.1034-j.1600-0544.2002.01170.x; DIAMOND O, 1980, AM J ORTHOD DENTOFAC, V78, P495, DOI 10.1016-0002-9416(80)90300-0; Faria Patrícia Toledo Monteiro, 2002, Braz Dent J, V13, P129, DOI 10.1590-S0103-64402002000200010; KERR WJS, 1989, ANGLE ORTHOD, V59, P91; King E., 1952, ANGLE ORTHOD, V22, P23; Linder-Aronson S, 1970, Acta Otolaryngol Suppl, V265, P1; LINDERARONSON S, 1993, AM J ORTHOD DENTOFAC, V103, P412, DOI 10.1016-S0889-5406(05)81792-5; LINDERARONSON S, 1983, EUR J ORTHODONT, V5, P47; LINDERARONSON S, 1986, AM J ORTHOD DENTOFAC, V89, P273, DOI 10.1016-0002-9416(86)90049-7; Macari A. T., 2006, J LEBANESE DENT ASS, V43, P29; Mattar Sara Elisa M, 2004, J Clin Pediatr Dent, V28, P315; MOORREES CFA, 1985, INTRO RADIOGRAPHIC C, P84; Oulis C J, 1994, J Clin Pediatr Dent, V18, P197; PROFFIT WR, 2000, CONT ORTHODONTICS, P137; PRUZANSKY S, 1975, ANN OTO RHINOL LARYN, V84, P55; SUBTELNY J D, 1956, Plast Reconstr Surg (1946), V17, P235, DOI 10.1097-00006534-195603000-00008; Valera FCP, 2003, INT J PEDIATR OTORHI, V67, P761, DOI 10.1016-S0165-5876(03)00095-8; WOODSIDE DG, 1991, AM J ORTHOD DENTOFAC, V100, P1, DOI 10.1016-0889-5406(91)70044-W64
Deep bite: Treatment options and challenges
No full textWhile deep overbite typically accompanies all classes of malocclusion, it is singled out in this article as the prominent component of malocclusion. We review the evidence-based treatment of deep overbite, mostly of lower tier on the evidence hierarchy. Accordingly, challenges to treatment emerge with the lack of firm guidelines for treatment. The main concerns relate to long-term stability and facial esthetics. Treatment options in children focus on possibilities of growth modification and avoidance of more severe development of the condition. Camouflage, surgical options, and compromised outcome are considered in the non-growing patient. We illustrate the various treatment strategies, including maxillary incisor esthetic differential extrusion, along with the side effects that may occur and ways to avoid them. The need for structured controlled trials and associated formulation of guidelines is demonstrated. © 2013 Elsevier Inc.Al-Buraiki H, 2005, AM J ORTHOD DENTOFAC, V127, P47, DOI 10.1016-j.ajodo.2003.10.034; Al-Farra E, 2001, AM J ORTHOD DENTOFAC, V120, P427, DOI 10.1067-mod.2001.117910; Baccetti T, 2012, AM J ORTHOD DENTOFAC, V142, P75, DOI 10.1016-j.ajodo.2012.02.024; BALL JV, 1991, EUR J ORTHODONT, V13, P53; Beane R A Jr, 1999, Semin Orthod, V5, P275, DOI 10.1016-S1073-8746(99)80021-8; BEGG PR, 1977, AM J ORTHOD DENTOFAC, V71, P1, DOI 10.1016-0002-9416(77)90175-0; Betzenberger D, 1999, ANGLE ORTHOD, V69, P27; BINDA SKR, 1994, EUR J ORTHODONT, V16, P301; Boom HPW, 2008, ARCH ORAL BIOL, V53, P273, DOI 10.1016-j.archoralbio.2007.08.013; Burstone CJ, 1995, MODERN EDGEWISE MECH, P33; Burzin J, 1993, RETENTION STABILITY, P61; Buschang PH, 2002, SEMIN ORTHOD, V8, P130, DOI 10.1053-sodo.2002.125432; CANGIALOSI TJ, 1984, AM J ORTHOD DENTOFAC, V85, P28, DOI 10.1016-0002-9416(84)90120-9; Chang YI, 1999, AM J ORTHOD DENTOFAC, V115, P29, DOI 10.1016-S0889-5406(99)70313-6; Cozza P, 2005, ANGLE ORTHOD, V75, P707; Dahl B L, 1975, J Oral Rehabil, V2, P209, DOI 10.1111-j.1365-2842.1975.tb00914.x; Devreese H, 2007, EUR J ORTHODONT, V29, P314, DOI 10.1093-ejo-cjm011; Franchi L, 2011, ANGLE ORTHOD, V81, P945, DOI 10.2319-033011-229.1; Ghafari J, 1998, BIOL MECH TOOTH ERUP, P8589; Ghafari J, 1995, BIOL MECH TOOTH ERUP, P545; Ghafari JG, 2011, EVIDENCE-BASED ORTHODONTICS, P247; Ghafari JG, 2012, CONT RESTORATION END, P115; Greig D G, 1983, Br J Orthod, V10, P214; HANS MG, 1994, ANGLE ORTHOD, V64, P265; Harrison JE, 2007, COCHRANE DB SYST REV, V18; Hartsfield Jr JK, 2011, ORTHODONTICS CURRENT, P139; Hering K, 1999, ANGLE ORTHOD, V69, P470; JANSON GRP, 1994, AM J ORTHOD DENTOFAC, V106, P409, DOI 10.1016-S0889-5406(94)70063-X; Kikuchi M, 2002, PSYCHIAT CLIN NEUROS, V56, P329, DOI 10.1046-j.1440-1819.2002.01002.x; KIM YH, 1987, ANGLE ORTHOD, V57, P290; MCFADDEN WM, 1989, AM J ORTHOD DENTOFAC, V96, P390, DOI 10.1016-0889-5406(89)90323-5; MELSEN B, 1989, AM J ORTHOD DENTOFAC, V96, P232, DOI 10.1016-0889-5406(89)90460-5; MELSEN B, 1988, AM J ORTHOD DENTOFAC, V94, P104, DOI 10.1016-0889-5406(88)90358-7; Millett DT, 2012, AM J ORTHOD DENTOFAC, V142, P159, DOI 10.1016-j.ajodo.2012.03.022; MOORREES CF, 1969, AMER J ORTHODONTICS, V55, P600, DOI 10.1016-0002-9416(69)90037-2; Nasry HA, 2006, BRIT DENT J, V200, P557, DOI 10.1038-sj.bdj.4813587; Ng J, 2005, AM J ORTHOD DENTOFAC, V128, P212, DOI 10.1016-j.ajodo.2004.04.025; Noroozi Hassan, 2002, Int J Adult Orthodon Orthognath Surg, V17, P47; Ohnishi H, 2005, ANGLE ORTHOD, V75, P444; OTTO RL, 1980, AM J ORTHOD DENTOFAC, V77, P437, DOI 10.1016-0002-9416(80)90108-6; PARKER CD, 1995, AM J ORTHOD DENTOFAC, V107, P382, DOI 10.1016-S0889-5406(95)70091-9; Polat-Ozsoy O, 2011, AM J ORTHOD DENTOFAC, V139, P526, DOI 10.1016-j.ajodo.2009.05.040; Proffit William R, 2007, Head Face Med, V3, P21, DOI 10.1186-1746-160X-3-21; Ricketts R M, 1972, Proc Found Orthod Res, P120; Sankey WL, 2000, AM J ORTHOD DENTOFAC, V118, P317, DOI 10.1067-mod.2000.106068; Shroff B, 1997, ANGLE ORTHOD, V67, P455; SIMONS ME, 1973, AM J ORTHOD DENTOFAC, V64, P349, DOI 10.1016-0002-9416(73)90243-1; Stellzig A, 1999, J Orofac Orthop, V60, P39, DOI 10.1007-BF01358714; Upadhyay M, 2008, AM J ORTHOD DENTOFAC, V134, P18, DOI 10.1016-j.ajodo.2007.03.025; van Steenbergen E, 2005, ANGLE ORTHOD, V75, P730; Weiland FJ, 1996, AM J ORTHOD DENTOFAC, V110, P647, DOI 10.1016-S0889-5406(96)80042-4; WORMS FW, 1971, AMER J ORTHODONTICS, V59, P589, DOI 10.1016-0002-9416(71)90005-41
Reduction of cardiac imaging tests during the COVID-19 pandemic: The case of Italy. Findings from the IAEA Non-invasive Cardiology Protocol Survey on COVID-19 (INCAPS COVID)
No full textBackground: In early 2020, COVID-19 massively hit Italy, earlier and harder than any other European country. This caused a series of strict containment measures, aimed at blocking the spread of the pandemic. Healthcare delivery was also affected when resources were diverted towards care of COVID-19 patients, including intensive care wards. Aim of the study: The aim is assessing the impact of COVID-19 on cardiac imaging in Italy, compare to the Rest of Europe (RoE) and the World (RoW). Methods: A global survey was conducted in May–June 2020 worldwide, through a questionnaire distributed online. The survey covered three periods: March and April 2020, and March 2019. Data from 52 Italian centres, a subset of the 909 participating centres from 108 countries, were analyzed. Results: In Italy, volumes decreased by 67% in March 2020, compared to March 2019, as opposed to a significantly lower decrease (p < 0.001) in RoE and RoW (41% and 40%, respectively). A further decrease from March 2020 to April 2020 summed up to 76% for the North, 77% for the Centre and 86% for the South. When compared to the RoE and RoW, this further decrease from March 2020 to April 2020 in Italy was significantly less (p = 0.005), most likely reflecting the earlier effects of the containment measures in Italy, taken earlier than anywhere else in the West. Conclusions: The COVID-19 pandemic massively hit Italy and caused a disruption of healthcare services, including cardiac imaging studies. This raises concern about the medium- and long-term consequences for the high number of patients who were denied timely diagnoses and the subsequent lifesaving therapies and procedures
Impact of COVID-19 on Diagnostic Cardiac Procedural Volume in Oceania: The IAEA Non-Invasive Cardiology Protocol Survey on COVID-19 (INCAPS COVID)
No full textObjectives: The INCAPS COVID Oceania study aimed to assess the impact caused by the COVID-19 pandemic on cardiac procedure volume provided in the Oceania region. Methods: A retrospective survey was performed comparing procedure volumes within March 2019 (pre-COVID-19) with April 2020 (during first wave of COVID-19 pandemic). Sixty-three (63) health care facilities within Oceania that perform cardiac diagnostic procedures were surveyed, including a mixture of metropolitan and regional, hospital and outpatient, public and private sites, and 846 facilities outside of Oceania. The percentage change in procedure volume was measured between March 2019 and April 2020, compared by test type and by facility. Results: In Oceania, the total cardiac diagnostic procedure volume was reduced by 52.2% from March 2019 to April 2020, compared to a reduction of 75.9% seen in the rest of the world (p<0.001). Within Oceania sites, this reduction varied significantly between procedure types, but not between types of health care facility. All procedure types (other than stress cardiac magnetic resonance [CMR] and positron emission tomography [PET]) saw significant reductions in volume over this time period (p<0.001). In Oceania, transthoracic echocardiography (TTE) decreased by 51.6%, transoesophageal echocardiography (TOE) by 74.0%, and stress tests by 65% overall, which was more pronounced for stress electrocardiograph (ECG) (81.8%) and stress echocardiography (76.7%) compared to stress single-photon emission computerised tomography (SPECT) (44.3%). Invasive coronary angiography decreased by 36.7% in Oceania. Conclusion: A significant reduction in cardiac diagnostic procedure volume was seen across all facility types in Oceania and was likely a function of recommendations from cardiac societies and directives from government to minimise spread of COVID-19 amongst patients and staff. Longer term evaluation is important to assess for negative patient outcomes which may relate to deferral of usual models of care within cardiology
