Browsing by Author "Azevedo, LF"
Now showing 1 - 3 of 3
Results Per Page
Sort Options
- Clinical Performance of CAD/CAM Tooth-Supported Ceramic Restorations: A Systematic ReviewPublication . Alves de Carvalho, IF; Santos Marques, TM; Araújo, FM; Azevedo, LF; Donato, H; Correia, AOwing to an increased demand for safe and esthetically pleasing dental materials, ceramics have been developed and optimized to rehabilitate anterior and posterior teeth. This evolution in ceramic materials is directly related to the development of sophisticated processing technologies and systems for use in dental medicine, particularly computer-aided design/computer-assisted manufacture (CAD/CAM) technology. This study is a systematic review outlining long-term clinical survival rates of single-tooth restorations fabricated with CAD/CAM technology with a minimum follow-up of 3 years. A bibliographic search up to September 2016 was performed using two databases: MEDLINE (PubMed) and Embase. Selected keywords and well-defined inclusion and exclusion criteria guided the search of relevant results. All articles were first reviewed by title, then by abstract, and subsequently by a full text reading. Data were assessed and extracted through a standardized form. The pooled results were statistically analyzed, and the overall failure rate was calculated by random effects model. Reported failures were analyzed by CAD/CAM system, type of restoration, restorative material, and luting agent. From a total of 2,916 single-tooth restorations with a mean exposure time of 7.0 years and 351 failures, the failure rate was 2.17% per year, estimated per 100 restoration years (95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.35% to 3.51%). The estimated total survival rate after 5 years was 89.7% (95% CI: 88.1% to 91.1%). The overall survival rate of single-tooth ceramic restorations fabricated with CAD/CAM technology was similar to those conventionally manufactured.
- Operational definitions of asthma in recent epidemiological studies are inconsistentPublication . Sá-Sousa, A; Jacinto, T; Azevedo, LF; Morais-Almeida, M; Robalo-Cordeiro, C; Bugalho-Almeida, A; Bousquet, J; Fonseca, JAOBJECTIVE: The best combination of questions to define asthma in epidemiological asthma studies is not known. We summarized the operational definitions of asthma used in prevalence studies and empirically assess how asthma prevalence estimates vary depending on the definition used. METHODS: We searched the Thomson Reuters ISI Web of knowledge and included (1) cross-sectional studies (2) on asthma prevalence (3) conducted in the general population and (4) containing an explicit definition of asthma. The search was limited to the 100 most-cited papers or published since January 2010. For each paper, we recorded the asthma definition used and other variables. Then we applied the definitions to the data of the Portuguese National Asthma survey (INAsma) and of the 2005-2006 National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES) computing asthma prevalence estimates for the different definitions. RESULTS: Of 1738 papers retrieved, 117 were included for analysis. Lifetime asthma, diagnosed asthma and current asthma were defined in 8, 12 and 29 different ways, respectively. By applying definitions of current asthma on INAsma and NHANES data, the prevalence ranged between 5.3%-24.4% and 1.1%-17.2%, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: There is considerable heterogeneity in the definitions of asthma used in epidemiological studies leading to highly variable estimates of asthma prevalence. Studies to inform a standardized operational definition are needed. Meanwhile, we propose a set of questions to be reported when defining asthma in epidemiological studies.
- Ophthalmic adverse drug reactions to systemic drugs: a systematic reviewPublication . Miguel, A; Henriques, F; Azevedo, LF; Pereira, ACPURPOSE: To perform a comprehensive and systematic review regarding ophthalmic adverse drug reactions (ADRs) to systemic drugs to: (i) systematically summarize existing evidence, (ii) identify areas, ophthalmic ADRs or drugs that lacked systematization or assessment (namely drugs with original studies characterizing specific ophthalmic ADRs but without causality assessment nor without meta-analysis). METHODS: Systematic review of several electronic databases (last search 1/7/2012): Medline, SCOPUS, ISI web of knowledge, ISI Conference Proceedings, International Pharmaceutical Abstracts and Google scholar. Search query included: eye, ocular, ophthalmic, ophthalmology, adverse and reaction. Inclusion criteria were: (i) Primary purpose was to assess an ophthalmic ADR to a systemic medication; (ii) Patient evaluation performed by an ophthalmologist; (iii) Studies that specified diagnostic criteria for an ocular ADR. Different types of studies were included and analyzed separately. Two independent reviewers assessed eligibility criteria, extracted data and evaluated risk of bias. RESULTS: From 562 studies found, 32 were included (1 systematic review to sildenafil, 11 narrative reviews, 1 trial, 1 prospective study, 6 transversal studies, 6 spontaneous reports and 6 case series). Drugs frequently involved included amiodarone, sildenafil, hydroxychloroquine and biphosphonates. Frequent ophthalmic ADRs included: keratopathy, dry eye and retinopathy. CONCLUSIONS: To increase evidence about ophthalmic ADRs, there is a need for performing specific systematic reviews, applying strictly the World Health Organization's (WHO) definition of ADR and WHO causality assessment of ADRs. Some ophthalmic ADRs may be frequent, but require ophthalmological examination; therefore, ophthalmologists' education and protocols of collaboration between other specialties whenever they prescribe high-risk drugs are suggestions for the future.