-
European Journal of Paediatric Dentistry Dec 2021The aim of this systematic review was to evaluate the clinical outcome of partial pulpotomy, pulpotomy and pulpectomy for treating primary teeth with normal or infected...
AIM
The aim of this systematic review was to evaluate the clinical outcome of partial pulpotomy, pulpotomy and pulpectomy for treating primary teeth with normal or infected pulp or with irreversible pulpitis.
METHODS
Two reviewers on Pubmed and ISI Web of Science performed a comprehensive literature review of publications from 1966 until July 2019. Pico outline was used to facilitate literature research. Among abstracts, publications were selected according to the following criteria: prospective clinical study, correct indication for the performed treatment, clear definition of clinical and/or radiographic success criteria and at least 6-month follow-up period. The strict selection criteria under the keywords "pulpotomy", "partial pulpotomy" and "pulpectomy" resulted in a limited amount of randomised controlled trials (RCT) or controlled clinical trials (CT). Qualitative assessment of the selected clinical studies and level of evidence was included according to the criteria described by the Oxford Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine (CEBM).
CONCLUSION
Prerequisites for a successful pulpotomy are symptom-free teeth, sterile removal of coronal pulp and haemostasis. Both MTA and formocresol perform well for partial pulpotomies after caries exposure. Formocresol had been the most popular amputation material for pulpotomies. Due to the potential side effects, other medicaments, such as ferric sulfate, mineral trioxide aggregate (MTA) or NaOCl are suggested. Grey and white MTA yeld the same results. Lasers are not recommended due to their large diversity. Regarding pulpectomy, the conditions, procedures, and evaluation for the treatment were not well defined in the studies. Nevertheless, there is evidence to use calcium hydroxide, zinc oxide eugenol paste or iodoform based pastes as root filling materials for non-vital molars. Pulpectomies showed better success rates than pulpotomies. Stainless steel crowns are recommended as definite restorations after both endodontic treatments. Longer follow-up periods, further clinical studies with comparable conditions and clear definition of evaluation criteria are needed to further confirm the results of endodontic treatment in primary teeth.
Topics: Calcium Compounds; Drug Combinations; Humans; Molar; Oxides; Pulpectomy; Pulpotomy; Silicates; Tooth, Deciduous; Treatment Outcome; Zinc Oxide-Eugenol Cement
PubMed: 35034465
DOI: 10.23804/ejpd.2021.22.04.4 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Apr 2018Edentulism is relatively common and is often treated with the provision of complete or partial removable dentures. Clinicians make final impressions of complete dentures... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Edentulism is relatively common and is often treated with the provision of complete or partial removable dentures. Clinicians make final impressions of complete dentures (CD) and removable partial dentures (RPD) using different techniques and materials. Applying the correct impression technique and material, based on an individual's oral condition, improves the quality of the prosthesis, which may improve quality of life.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the effects of different final-impression techniques and materials used to make complete dentures, for retention, stability, comfort, and quality of life in completely edentulous people.To assess the effects of different final-impression techniques and materials used to make removable partial dentures, for stability, comfort, overextension, and quality of life in partially edentulous people.
SEARCH METHODS
Cochrane Oral Health's Information Specialist searched the following databases: Cochrane Oral Health's Trials Register (to 22 November 2017), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (Cochrane Register of Studies, to 22 November 2017), MEDLINE Ovid (1946 to 22 November 2017), and Embase Ovid (21 December 2015 to 22 November 2017). The US National Institutes of Health Trials Registry (ClinicalTrials.gov) and the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform were searched for ongoing trials. No restrictions were placed on language or publication status when searching the electronic databases, however the search of Embase was restricted by date due to the Cochrane Centralised Search Project to identify all clinical trials and add them to CENTRAL.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing different final-impression techniques and materials for treating people with complete dentures (CD) and removable partial dentures (RPD). For CD, we included trials that compared different materials or different techniques or both. In RPD for tooth-supported conditions, we included trials comparing the same material and different techniques, or different materials and the same technique. In tooth- and tissue-supported RPD, we included trials comparing the same material and different dual-impression techniques, and different materials with different dual-impression techniques.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors independently, and in duplicate, screened studies for eligibility, extracted data, and assessed the risk of bias for each included trial. We expressed results as risk ratios (RR) for dichotomous outcomes, and as mean differences (MD) or standardised mean differences (SMD) for continuous outcomes, with 95% confidence intervals (CI), using the random-effects model. We constructed 'Summary of findings' tables for the main comparisons and outcomes (participant-reported oral health-related quality of life, quality of the denture, and denture border adjustments).
MAIN RESULTS
We included nine studies in this review. Eight studies involved 485 participants with CD. We assessed six of the studies to be at high risk of bias, and two to be at low risk of bias. We judged one study on RPD with 72 randomised participants to be at high risk of bias.Overall, the quality of the evidence for each comparison and outcome was either low or very low, therefore, results should be interpreted with caution, as future research is likely to change the findings.Complete denturesTwo studies compared the same material and different techniques (one study contributed data to a secondary outcome only); two studies compared the same technique and different materials; and four studies compared different materials and techniques.One study (10 participants) evaluated two stage-two step, Biofunctional Prosthetic system (BPS) using additional silicone elastomer compared to conventional methods, and found no evidence of a clear difference for oral health-related quality of life, or quality of the dentures (denture satisfaction). The study reported that BPS required fewer adjustments. We assessed the quality of the evidence as very low.One study (27 participants) compared selective pressure final-impression technique using wax versus polysulfide elastomeric (rubber) material. The study did not measure quality of life or dentures, and found no evidence of a clear difference between interventions in the need for adjustments (RR 0.81, 95% CI 0.38 to 1.70). We assessed the quality of the evidence as very low.One study compared two stage-two step final impression with alginate versus silicone elastomer. Oral health-related quality of life measured by the OHIP-EDENT seemed to be better with silicone (MD 7.20, 95% CI 2.71 to 11.69; 144 participants). The study found no clear differences in participant-reported quality of the denture (comfort) after a two-week 'confirmation' period, but reported that silicone was better for stability and chewing efficiency. We assessed the quality of the evidence as low.Three studies compared single-stage impressions with alginate versus two stage-two step with elastomer (silicone, polysulfide, or polyether) impressions. There was no evidence of a clear difference in the OHIP-EDENT at one month (MD 0.05, 95% CI -2.37 to 2.47; two studies, 98 participants). There was no evidence of a clear difference in participant-rated general satisfaction with dentures at six months (MD 0.00, 95% CI -8.23 to 8.23; one study, 105 participants). We assessed the quality of the evidence as very low.One study compared single-stage alginate versus two stage-two step using zinc-oxide eugenol, and found no evidence of a clear difference in OHIP-EDENT (MD 0.50, 95% CI -2.67 to 3.67; 39 participants), or general satisfaction (RR 3.15, 95% CI 0.14 to 72.88; 39 participants) at six months. We assessed the quality of the evidence as very low.Removable partial denturesOne study randomised 72 participants and compared altered-cast technique versus one-piece cast technique. The study did not measure quality of life, but reported that most participants were satisfied with the dentures and there was no evidence of any clear difference between groups for general satisfaction at one-year follow-up (low-quality evidence). There was no evidence of a clear difference in number of intaglio adjustments at one year (RR 1.43, 95% CI 0.61 to 3.34) (very low-quality evidence).
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
We conclude that there is no clear evidence that one technique or material has a substantial advantage over another for making complete dentures and removable partial dentures. Available evidence for the relative benefits of different denture fabrication techniques and final-impression materials is limited and is of low or very low quality. More high-quality RCTs are required.
Topics: Dental Impression Materials; Dental Impression Technique; Denture Design; Denture Retention; Denture, Partial, Removable; Dentures; Humans; Mouth, Edentulous; Quality of Life; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 29617037
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD012256.pub2 -
Neurology Apr 2021To evaluate the incidence and prevalence of drug-resistant epilepsy (DRE) as well as its predictors and correlates, we conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
OBJECTIVE
To evaluate the incidence and prevalence of drug-resistant epilepsy (DRE) as well as its predictors and correlates, we conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of observational studies.
METHODS
Our protocol was registered with PROSPERO, and the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses and Meta-analysis of Observational Studies in Epidemiology reporting standards were followed. We searched MEDLINE, Embase, and Web of Science. We used a double arcsine transformation and random-effects models to perform our meta-analyses. We performed random-effects meta-regressions using study-level data.
RESULTS
Our search strategy identified 10,794 abstracts. Of these, 103 articles met our eligibility criteria. There was high interstudy heterogeneity and risk of bias. The cumulative incidence of DRE was 25.0% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 16.8-34.3) in child studies but 14.6% (95% CI: 8.8-21.6) in adult/mixed age studies. The prevalence of DRE was 13.7% (95% CI: 9.2-19.0) in population/community-based populations but 36.3% (95% CI: 30.4-42.4) in clinic-based cohorts. Meta-regression confirmed that the prevalence of DRE was higher in clinic-based populations and in focal epilepsy. Multiple predictors and correlates of DRE were identified. The most reported of these were having a neurologic deficit, an abnormal EEG, and symptomatic epilepsy. The most reported genetic predictors of DRE were polymorphisms of the gene.
CONCLUSIONS
Our observations provide a basis for estimating the incidence and prevalence of DRE, which vary between populations. We identified numerous putative DRE predictors and correlates. These findings are important to plan epilepsy services, including epilepsy surgery, a crucial treatment option for people with disabling seizures and DRE.
Topics: Drug Resistant Epilepsy; Epilepsies, Partial; Humans; Incidence; Pharmaceutical Preparations; Prevalence; Seizures
PubMed: 33722992
DOI: 10.1212/WNL.0000000000011839 -
Journal of Conservative Dentistry : JCD 2022Advances in adhesive technologies and escalation in esthetic demands have increased indications for tooth-colored, partial coverage restorations. Recently, material... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Advances in adhesive technologies and escalation in esthetic demands have increased indications for tooth-colored, partial coverage restorations. Recently, material knowledge has evolved, new materials have been developed, and no systematic review has answered the question posed by practitioners: Is the clinical efficacy of resin or ceramic better, for inlay, onlay, and overlay in the long run?
AIM
The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to evaluate the clinical performance of ceramic and resin inlays, onlays, and overlays and to identify the complication types associated with the main clinical outcomes.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
Two reviewers (VN and AJ) searched PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Central registry of controlled trials for published articles between 1983 and 2020 conforming to Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses guidelines for systematic reviews. Only clinical studies which met the following criteria were included (1) studies regarding ceramic and resin inlays, onlays, and overlays were included; (2) randomized controlled trials, retrospective or prospective studies conducted in humans; (3) studies with a dropout rate <50% 4) studies with a follow-up higher than 5 years.
RESULTS
Of 1718 articles, 21 articles were selected. At 5 years, the estimated survival rates for resin ( = 129) was 86%, feldspathic porcelain ( = 1048) was 90%, and glass ceramic ( = 2218) was 92%; at 10 years, the survival of resin was 75% ( = 115), feldspathic porcelain was 91% ( = 1829), and glass ceramic was 89% ( = 1075).
CONCLUSION
The meta-regression indicated that ceramic partial coverage restorations (feldspathic porcelain and glass-ceramic) outperformed resin partial coverage restorations both at 5-year and 10-year follow-up. When compared between ceramic types, glass ceramics outperformed feldspathic porcelain at 5 years' follow-up and feldspathic porcelain outperformed glass ceramics at 10 years' follow-up. The failures were mostly due to fractures (6.2%), endodontic problems (3%), secondary caries (1.7%), and debonding which was 0.9%.
PubMed: 36187858
DOI: 10.4103/jcd.jcd_184_22 -
Journal of Prosthodontic Research Jan 2022This study comprehensively reviewed the current status of the digital workflow of removable partial dentures (RPDs) and summarized information about the fabrication...
PURPOSE
This study comprehensively reviewed the current status of the digital workflow of removable partial dentures (RPDs) and summarized information about the fabrication methods and material properties of the dental framework, artificial teeth, and denture base.
STUDY SELECTION
We performed a systematic review of the literature published in online databases from January 1980 to April 2020 regarding RPD fabrication and materials used in the related digital technology. We selected eligible articles, retrieved information regarding digital RPDs, and conducted qualitative/quantitative analyses. In this paper, the computer-aided design/computer-aided manufacturing (CAD/CAM) framework, artificial teeth, and denture base materials are reported.
RESULTS
A variety of materials, such as cobalt-chromium alloy, titanium, zirconia, and polyether ether ketone, are used for dental CAD/CAM frameworks. The mechanical strength of the metal materials used for the CAD/CAM framework was superior to that of the cast framework. However, the fitness and surface roughness of the framework and clasp fabricated using a selective laser melting (SLM) method were not superior to those obtained via cast fabrication. Most material properties and the surface roughness of poly methyl methacrylate (PMMA) discs used for digital RPDs were superior to those of heat-cured PMMA.
CONCLUSION
The use of a CAD/CAM framework and PMMA disc for digital RPDs offers numerous advantages over conventional RPDs. However, technical challenges regarding the accuracy and durability of adhesion between the framework and denture base remain to be solved. In digital fabrication, human technical factors influence the quality of the framework.
Topics: Computer-Aided Design; Denture Bases; Denture, Partial, Removable; Humans; Tooth, Artificial; Workflow
PubMed: 33504722
DOI: 10.2186/jpr.JPR_D_20_00117 -
The Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry Feb 2023Artificial intelligence applications are increasing in prosthodontics. Still, the current development and performance of artificial intelligence in prosthodontic... (Review)
Review
STATEMENT OF PROBLEM
Artificial intelligence applications are increasing in prosthodontics. Still, the current development and performance of artificial intelligence in prosthodontic applications has not yet been systematically documented and analyzed.
PURPOSE
The purpose of this systematic review was to assess the performance of the artificial intelligence models in prosthodontics for tooth shade selection, automation of restoration design, mapping the tooth preparation finishing line, optimizing the manufacturing casting, predicting facial changes in patients with removable prostheses, and designing removable partial dentures.
MATERIAL AND METHODS
An electronic systematic review was performed in MEDLINE/PubMed, EMBASE, Web of Science, Cochrane, and Scopus. A manual search was also conducted. Studies with artificial intelligence models were selected based on 6 criteria: tooth shade selection, automated fabrication of dental restorations, mapping the finishing line of tooth preparations, optimizing the manufacturing casting process, predicting facial changes in patients with removable prostheses, and designing removable partial dentures. Two investigators independently evaluated the quality assessment of the studies by applying the Joanna Briggs Institute Critical Appraisal Checklist for Quasi-Experimental Studies (nonrandomized experimental studies). A third investigator was consulted to resolve lack of consensus.
RESULTS
A total of 36 articles were reviewed and classified into 6 groups based on the application of the artificial intelligence model. One article reported on the development of an artificial intelligence model for tooth shade selection, reporting better shade matching than with conventional visual selection; 14 articles reported on the feasibility of automated design of dental restorations using different artificial intelligence models; 1 artificial intelligence model was able to mark the margin line without manual interaction with an average accuracy ranging from 90.6% to 97.4%; 2 investigations developed artificial intelligence algorithms for optimizing the manufacturing casting process, reporting an improvement of the design process, minimizing the porosity on the cast metal, and reducing the overall manufacturing time; 1 study proposed an artificial intelligence model that was able to predict facial changes in patients using removable prostheses; and 17 investigations that developed clinical decision support, expert systems for designing removable partial dentures for clinicians and educational purposes, computer-aided learning with video interactive programs for student learning, and automated removable partial denture design.
CONCLUSIONS
Artificial intelligence models have shown the potential for providing a reliable diagnostic tool for tooth shade selection, automated restoration design, mapping the preparation finishing line, optimizing the manufacturing casting, predicting facial changes in patients with removable prostheses, and designing removable partial dentures, but they are still in development. Additional studies are needed to further develop and assess their clinical performance.
Topics: Humans; Prosthodontics; Artificial Intelligence; Dental Implants; Tooth; Dental Care; Denture, Partial, Removable
PubMed: 34281697
DOI: 10.1016/j.prosdent.2021.06.001 -
Clinical Oral Investigations Dec 2021The survival rate of indirect partial adhesive restorations on vital versus endodontically treated teeth is still controversial. The hypothesis is that there may be a... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
OBJECTIVES
The survival rate of indirect partial adhesive restorations on vital versus endodontically treated teeth is still controversial. The hypothesis is that there may be a difference in the survival rate of partial adhesive restorations performed on non-vital teeth compared to vital teeth.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
This systematic review was conducted following the PRISMA guidelines. The considered clinical studies investigated the outcomes of adhesive inlays, onlays, and overlays conducted over the past 40 years, focusing on Kaplan-Meier survival curves to calculate the hazard ratio (primary objective) and the survival rate (secondary objective) between vital and non-vital teeth. The risk of bias was assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. Studies included in the review were identified through bibliographic research on electronic databases ("PubMed," "Scopus," "Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trial," and "Embase"). The K agreement between the two screening reviewers was evaluated.
RESULTS
A total of 55,793 records were identified on PubMed, Scopus, and other bibliographic sources, and after the application of the eligibility and inclusion criteria, eight articles were included for qualitative analysis and six for quantitative analysis. The meta-analysis of the primary and secondary outcomes demonstrated that hazard ratios (HR = 8.41, 95% CI: [4.50, 15.72]) and survival rates (OR = 3.24, 95% CI: [1.76, 5.82]) seemed more favorable for indirect partial adhesive restorations on vital teeth than for those on endodontically treated teeth.
CONCLUSIONS
Within the limits of this study, these findings suggest that the risk of failure of indirect partial adhesive restorations on endodontically treated teeth is higher than on vital teeth.
CLINICAL RELEVANCE
The use of partial adhesive restorations on vital and endodontically treated teeth showed different long-term clinical outcomes.
Topics: Composite Resins; Dental Restoration Failure; Dental Restoration, Permanent; Humans; Inlays; Kaplan-Meier Estimate; Mass Screening; Tooth, Nonvital
PubMed: 34628547
DOI: 10.1007/s00784-021-04187-x -
Journal of Clinical Periodontology Jun 2022The aim of this systematic review was to answer the following focused question: "In partially edentulous patients with periodontitis, are removable dental prostheses...
AIM
The aim of this systematic review was to answer the following focused question: "In partially edentulous patients with periodontitis, are removable dental prostheses (RDPs) more efficacious than no prosthetic treatment, treatment to a shortened dental arch (SDA), or tooth-supported fixed dental prostheses (FDPs)?"
MATERIALS AND METHODS
A systematic literature search was performed electronically for the period 1966-2020. Two authors independently assessed the studies for eligibility according to the PRISMA guidelines. Risk assessment was performed using RoB 2.0 and the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale.
RESULTS
Two retrospective studies indicated that RDPs increased the risk of tooth loss compared to FDPs in patients with a history of periodontitis. Prospective studies found that RDPs could be maintained without any significant periodontal destruction on a long-term basis. Owing to the heterogeneity of the data, no meta-analysis could be performed. Several studies indicated that RDP increased plaque accumulation. RDPs had only a limited effect on masticatory efficiency and nutritional status. RDPs may improve oral-health-related quality of life (OHRQoL), but to a lesser extent compared with that of patients treated to an SDA.
CONCLUSIONS
There is no strong evidence that RDPs per se will cause periodontal destruction including tooth loss. RDPs do not inevitably improve masticatory efficiency but improve OHRQoL, although less than for patients treated with FDPs including resin-bonded FDPs.
Topics: Dental Implants; Denture, Partial, Removable; Humans; Jaw, Edentulous, Partially; Periodontitis; Prospective Studies; Quality of Life; Retrospective Studies; Tooth Loss
PubMed: 34761421
DOI: 10.1111/jcpe.13519 -
Journal of Shoulder and Elbow Surgery Mar 2022There is ongoing controversy regarding optimal treatment for full-thickness rotator cuff tears. Given that the evidence surrounding the use of various treatment options... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
There is ongoing controversy regarding optimal treatment for full-thickness rotator cuff tears. Given that the evidence surrounding the use of various treatment options has expanded, an overall assessment is required.
OBJECTIVES
The following were compared to determine which resulted in improved patient-reported function, pain, and reoperation rates for each: (1) double-row (DR) fixation and single-row (SR) fixation in arthroscopic cuff repair; (2) latissimus dorsi transfer (LDT) with lower trapezius transfer (LTT), partial rotator cuff repair, and superior capsular reconstruction (SCR); and (3) early and late surgical intervention.
METHODS
Medline, Embase, and Cochrane were searched through to April 20, 2021. Additional studies were identified from reviews. The following were included: (1) All English-language randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in patients ≥18 years of age comparing SR and DR fixation, (2) observational studies comparing LDT with LTT, partial repair, and SCR, and (3) observational studies comparing early vs. late treatment of full-thickness rotator cuff tears.
RESULTS
A total of 15 RCTs (n = 1096 randomized patients) were included in the meta-analysis of SR vs. DR fixation. No significant standardized mean differences in function (0.08, 95% confidence interval [CI] -0.09, 0.24) or pain (-0.01, 95% CI -0.52, 0.49) were observed. There was a difference in retear rates in favor of DR compared with SR fixation (RR 1.56, 95% CI 1.06, 2.29). Four studies were included in the systematic review of LDT compared with a surgical control. LDT and partial repair did not reveal any differences in function (-1.12, 95% CI -4.02, 1.78) on comparison. A single study compared arthroscopically assisted LDT to LTT and observed a nonstatistical difference in the Constant score of 14.7 (95% CI -4.06, 33.46). A single RCT compared LDT with SCR and revealed a trend toward superiority for the Constant score with SCR with a mean difference of -9.6 (95% CI -19.82, 0.62). Comparison of early vs. late treatment revealed a paucity of comparative studies with varying definitions of "early" and "late" treatment, which made meaningful interpretation of the results difficult.
CONCLUSION
DR fixation leads to similar improvement in function and pain compared with SR fixation and results in a higher healing rate. LDT transfer yields results similar to those from partial repair, LTT, and SCR in functional outcomes. Further study is required to determine the optimal timing of treatment and to increase confidence in these findings. Future trials of high methodologic quality comparing LDT with LTT and SCR are required.
Topics: Arthroscopy; Humans; Rotator Cuff; Rotator Cuff Injuries; Superficial Back Muscles; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 34906681
DOI: 10.1016/j.jse.2021.11.002 -
Epilepsia Jun 2017The intravenous formulation of lacosamide (LCM) and its good overall tolerability and safety favor the use in status epilepticus (SE). The aim of this systematic review... (Review)
Review
OBJECTIVE
The intravenous formulation of lacosamide (LCM) and its good overall tolerability and safety favor the use in status epilepticus (SE). The aim of this systematic review was to identify and evaluate studies reporting on the use of LCM in SE.
METHODS
We performed a systematic literature search of electronic databases using a combined search strategy from 2008 until October 2016. Using a standardized assessment form, information on the study design, methodologic framework, data sources, efficacy, and adverse events attributed to LCM were extracted from each publication and systematically reported.
RESULTS
In total, 522 SE episodes (51.7% female) in 486 adults and 36 children and adolescents were evaluated with an overall LCM efficacy of 57%. Efficacy was comparable between use in nonconvulsive (57%; 82/145) and generalized-convulsive (61%; 30/49; p = 0.68) SE, whereas overall success rate was better in focal motor SE (92%; 34/39, p = 0.013; p < 0.001). The efficacy with later positioning of LCM decreased from 100% to 20%. The main adverse events during treatment of SE are dizziness, abnormal vision, diplopia, and ataxia. Overall, lacosamide is well tolerated and has no clinically relevant drug-drug interactions.
SIGNIFICANCE
The available data regarding the use of LCM in SE are promising, with a success rate of 57%. The strength of LCM is the lack of interaction potential and the option for intravenous use in emergency situations requiring rapid uptitration.
Topics: Acetamides; Adolescent; Adult; Aged; Aged, 80 and over; Child; Child, Preschool; Epilepsy, Partial, Motor; Female; Humans; Infant; Infant, Newborn; Infusions, Intravenous; Lacosamide; Male; Middle Aged; Status Epilepticus; Treatment Outcome; Young Adult
PubMed: 28295226
DOI: 10.1111/epi.13716