-
American Family Physician Jan 2018The differential diagnosis of heel pain is extensive, but a mechanical etiology is the most common. The specific anatomic location of the pain can help guide diagnosis....
The differential diagnosis of heel pain is extensive, but a mechanical etiology is the most common. The specific anatomic location of the pain can help guide diagnosis. The most common diagnosis is plantar fasciitis, which leads to medial plantar heel pain, especially with the first weight-bearing steps after rest. Other causes of plantar heel pain include calcaneal stress fractures (progressively worsening pain after an increase in activity or change to a harder walking surface), nerve entrapment or neuroma (pain accompanied by burning, tingling, or numbness), heel pad syndrome (deep, bruise-like pain in the middle of the heel), and plantar warts. Achilles tendinopathy is a common cause of posterior heel pain; other tendinopathies result in pain localized to the insertion site of the affected tendon. Posterior heel pain can also be attributed to Haglund deformity (a prominence of the calcaneus that may lead to retrocalcaneal bursa inflammation) or Sever disease (calcaneal apophysitis common in children and adolescents). Medial midfoot heel pain, particularly with prolonged weight bearing, may be due to tarsal tunnel syndrome, which is caused by compression of the posterior tibial nerve. Sinus tarsi syndrome manifests as lateral midfoot heel pain and a feeling of instability, particularly with increased activity or walking on uneven surfaces.
Topics: Diagnosis, Differential; Foot Diseases; Heel; Humans; Pain; Pain Management
PubMed: 29365222
DOI: No ID Found -
Neurology India 2021Idiopathic intracranial hypertension (IIH) is defined as a syndrome of raised intracranial pressure with normal imaging of the brain and cerebrospinal fluid (CSF)... (Review)
Review
Idiopathic intracranial hypertension (IIH) is defined as a syndrome of raised intracranial pressure with normal imaging of the brain and cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) composition. There is a rising incidence and prevalence of this disease related to the increased prevalence of obesity. It typically affects women of working age, and headache is the predominant morbidity in over 90%. The disease is also more prevalent in young males. There are many controversies and myths that surround IIH. There are currently few treatment options for IIH, management is typically medical with those experiencing progressive visual loss undergoing surgical procedures. Weight loss and venous sinus stenting are a few therapies directed at the etiology.
Topics: Female; Headache; Humans; Intracranial Hypertension; Male; Pseudotumor Cerebri; Stents; Vision Disorders
PubMed: 35103000
DOI: 10.4103/0028-3886.332276 -
American Family Physician Oct 2017Chronic rhinosinusitis is an inflammatory disease of the paranasal sinuses that occurs in 1% to 5% of the U.S. (Review)
Review
UNLABELLED
Chronic rhinosinusitis is an inflammatory disease of the paranasal sinuses that occurs in 1% to 5% of the U.S.
POPULATION
It may significantly decrease quality of life. Chronic rhinosinusitis is defined by the presence of at least two out of four cardinal symptoms (i.e., facial pain/pressure, hyposmia/anosmia, nasal drainage, and nasal obstruction) for at least 12 consecutive weeks, in addition to objective evidence. Objective evidence of chronic rhinosinusitis may be obtained on physical examination (anterior rhinoscopy, endoscopy) or radiography, preferably from sinus computed tomography. Treatment is directed at enhancing mucociliary clearance, improving sinus drainage/outflow, eradicating local infection and inflammation, and improving access for topical medications. First-line treatment is nasal saline irrigation and intranasal corticosteroid sprays. There may be a role for antibiotics in patients with evidence of an active, superimposed acute sinus infection. If medical management fails, endoscopic sinus surgery may be effective. Patients not responding to first-line medical therapy should be referred to an otolaryngologist, and selected patients with a history suggestive of other comorbidities (e.g., vasculitides, granulomatous diseases, cystic fibrosis, immunodeficiency) may also benefit from referral to an allergist or pulmonologist.
Topics: Administration, Intranasal; Administration, Oral; Administration, Topical; Anti-Bacterial Agents; Chronic Disease; Female; Humans; Male; Nasal Sprays; Quality of Life; Rhinitis; Sinusitis; Sodium Chloride; Therapeutic Irrigation; United States
PubMed: 29094889
DOI: No ID Found -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Dec 2022Root canal treatment (RoCT), or endodontic treatment, is a common procedure in dentistry. The main indications for RoCT are irreversible pulpitis and necrosis of the... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Root canal treatment (RoCT), or endodontic treatment, is a common procedure in dentistry. The main indications for RoCT are irreversible pulpitis and necrosis of the dental pulp caused by carious processes, coronal crack or fracture, or dental trauma. Successful RoCT is characterised by an absence of symptoms (i.e. pain) and clinical signs (i.e. swelling and sinus tract) in teeth without radiographic evidence of periodontal involvement (i.e. normal periodontal ligament). The success of RoCT depends on a number of variables related to the preoperative condition of the tooth, as well as the endodontic procedures. RoCT can be carried out with a single-visit approach, which involves root canal system obturation (filling and sealing) directly after instrumentation and irrigation, or with a multiple-visits approach, in which the treatment is completed in two or more sessions and obturation is performed in the last session. This review updates the previous versions published in 2007 and 2016.
OBJECTIVES
To evaluate the benefits and harms of completion of root canal treatment (RoCT) in a single visit compared to RoCT over two or more visits, with or without medication, in people aged over 10 years.
SEARCH METHODS
We used standard, extensive Cochrane search methods. The latest search date was 25 April 2022.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included randomised controlled trials and quasi-randomised controlled trials in people needing RoCT comparing completion of RoCT in a single visit compared to RoCT over two or more visits. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used standard Cochrane methods. Our primary outcomes were 1. tooth extraction and 2. radiological failure after at least one year (i.e. periapical radiolucency). Our secondary outcomes were 3. postoperative and postobturation pain; 4. swelling or flare-up; 5. analgesic use and 6. presence of sinus track or fistula after at least one month. We used GRADE to assess certainty of evidence for each outcome. We excluded five studies that were included in the previous version of the review because they did not meet the current standard of care (i.e. rubber dam isolation and irrigation with sodium hypochlorite).
MAIN RESULTS
We included 47 studies with 5805 participants and 5693 teeth analysed. We judged 10 studies at low risk of bias, 17 at high risk of bias and 20 at unclear risk of bias. Only two studies reported data on tooth extraction. We found no evidence of a difference between treatment in one visit or treatment over multiple visits, but we had very low certainty about the findings (risk ratio (RR) 0.46, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.09 to 2.50; I = 0%; 2 studies, 402 teeth). We found no evidence of a difference between single-visit and multiple-visit treatment in terms of radiological failure (RR 0.93, 95% CI 0.81 to 1.07; I = 0%; 13 studies, 1505 teeth; moderate-certainty evidence). We found evidence of a higher proportion of participants reporting pain within one week in single-visit groups compared to multiple visit groups (RR 1.55, 95% CI 1.14 to 2.09; I = 18%; 5 studies, 638 teeth; moderate-certainty evidence). We found no evidence of a difference in the proportion of participants reporting pain until 72 hours postobturation (RR 0.97, 95% CI 0.81 to 1.16; I = 70%; 12 studies, 1329 teeth; low-certainty evidence), pain intensity until 72 hours postobturation (mean difference (MD) 0.26, 95% CI -4.76 to 5.29; I = 98%; 12 studies, 1258 teeth; low-certainty evidence) or pain at one week postobturation (RR 1.05, 95% CI 0.67 to 1.67; I = 61%; 9 studies, 1139 teeth; very low-certainty evidence). We found no evidence of a difference in swelling or flare-up incidence (RR 0.56 95% CI 0.16 to 1.92; I = 0%; 6 studies; 605 teeth; very low-certainty evidence), analgesic use (RR 1.25 95% CI 0.75 to 2.09; I = 36%; 6 studies, 540 teeth; very low-certainty evidence) or sinus tract or fistula presence (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.24 to 4.28; I = 0%; 5 studies, 650 teeth; very low-certainty evidence). Subgroup analysis found no differences between single-visit and multiple-visit RoCT for considered outcomes other than proportion of participants reporting post-treatment pain within one week, which was higher in the single-visit groups for vital teeth (RR 2.16, 95% CI 1.39 to 3.36; I = 0%; 2 studies, 316 teeth), and when instrumentation was mechanical (RR 1.80, 95% CI 1.10 to 2.92; I = 56%; 2 studies, 278 teeth).
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
As in the previous two versions of the review, there is currently no evidence to suggest that one treatment regimen (single-visit or multiple-visit RoCT) is more effective than the other. Neither regimen can prevent pain and other complications in the 12-month postoperative period. There was moderate-certainty evidence of higher proportion of participants reporting pain within one week in single-visit groups compared to multiple-visit groups. In contrast to the results of the last version of the review, there was no difference in analgesic use.
Topics: Humans; Aged; Dentition, Permanent; Root Canal Therapy; Tooth Extraction; Analgesics; Pain
PubMed: 36512807
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD005296.pub4 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Dec 2016Root canal treatment (RoCT), or endodontic treatment, is a common procedure in dentistry. The main indications for RoCT are irreversible pulpitis and necrosis of the... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Root canal treatment (RoCT), or endodontic treatment, is a common procedure in dentistry. The main indications for RoCT are irreversible pulpitis and necrosis of the dental pulp caused by carious processes, tooth cracks or chips, or dental trauma. Successful RoCT is characterised by an absence of symptoms (i.e. pain) and clinical signs (i.e. swelling and sinus tract) in teeth without radiographic evidence of periodontal involvement (i.e. normal periodontal ligament). The success of RoCT depends on a number of variables related to the preoperative condition of the tooth, as well as the endodontic procedures. This review updates the previous version published in 2007.
OBJECTIVES
To determine whether completion of root canal treatment (RoCT) in a single visit or over two or more visits, with or without medication, makes any difference in term of effectiveness or complications.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the following electronic databases: Cochrane Oral Health's Trials Register (to 14 June 2016), Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (the Cochrane Library, 2016, Issue 5), MEDLINE Ovid (1946 to 14 June 2016), and Embase Ovid (1980 to 14 June 2016). We searched ClinicalTrials.gov and the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform for ongoing trials to 14 June 2016. We did not place any restrictions on the language or date of publication when searching the electronic databases.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-RCTs of people needing RoCT. We excluded surgical endodontic treatment. The outcomes of interest were tooth extraction for endodontic problems; radiological failure after at least one year, i.e. periapical radiolucency; postoperative pain; swelling or flare-up; painkiller use; sinus track or fistula formation; and complications (composite outcome including any adverse event).
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
We collected data using a specially designed extraction form. We contacted trial authors for further details where these were unclear. We assessed the risk of bias in the studies using the Cochrane tool and we assessed the quality of the body of evidence using GRADE criteria. When valid and relevant data were collected, we undertook a meta-analysis of the data using the random-effects model. For dichotomous outcomes, we calculated risk ratios (RRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs). For continuous data, we calculated mean differences (MDs) and 95% CIs. We examined potential sources of heterogeneity. We conducted subgroup analyses for necrotic and vital teeth.
MAIN RESULTS
We included 25 RCTs in the review, with a total of 3780 participants, of whom we analysed 3751. We judged three studies to be at low risk of bias, 14 at high risk, and eight as unclear.Only one study reported data on tooth extraction due to endodontic problems. This study found no difference between treatment in one visit or treatment over multiple visits (1/117 single-visit participants lost a tooth versus 2/103 multiple-visit participants; odds ratio (OR) 0.44, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.04 to 4.78; very low-quality evidence).We found no evidence of a difference between single-visit and multiple-visit treatment in terms of radiological failure (risk ratio (RR) 0.91, 95% CI 0.68 to 1.21; 1493 participants, 11 studies, I = 18%; low-quality evidence); immediate postoperative pain (dichotomous outcome) (RR 0.99, 95% CI 0.84 to 1.17; 1560 participants, 9 studies, I = 33%; moderate-quality evidence); swelling or flare-up incidence (RR 1.36, 95% CI 0.66 to 2.81; 281 participants, 4 studies, I = 0%; low-quality evidence); sinus tract or fistula formation (RR 0.98, 95% CI 0.15 to 6.48; 345 participants, 2 studies, I = 0%; low-quality evidence); or complications (RR 0.92, 95% CI 0.77 to 1.11; 1686 participants, 10 studies, I = 18%; moderate-quality evidence).The studies suggested people undergoing RoCT in a single visit may be more likely to experience pain in the first week than those whose RoCT was over multiple visits (RR 1.50, 95% CI 0.99 to 2.28; 1383 participants, 8 studies, I = 54%), though the quality of the evidence for this finding is low.Moderate-quality evidence showed people undergoing RoCT in a single visit were more likely to use painkillers than those receiving treatment over multiple visits (RR 2.35, 95% CI 1.60 to 3.45; 648 participants, 4 studies, I = 0%).
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
There is no evidence to suggest that one treatment regimen (single-visit or multiple-visit root canal treatment) is better than the other. Neither can prevent all short- and long-term complications. On the basis of the available evidence, it seems likely that the benefit of a single-visit treatment, in terms of time and convenience, for both patient and dentist, has the cost of a higher frequency of late postoperative pain (and as a consequence, painkiller use).
Topics: Analgesics; Anti-Bacterial Agents; Appointments and Schedules; Dental Pulp Necrosis; Dentition, Permanent; Humans; Office Visits; Pain, Postoperative; Pulpitis; Radiography; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Root Canal Therapy; Tooth Extraction; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 27905673
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD005296.pub3 -
Cells Jul 2023The current review aims to provide an overview of the most recent research on the potentials of concentrated growth factors used in the maxillary sinus lift technique. (Review)
Review
Maxillary Sinus Augmentation Using Autologous Platelet Concentrates (Platelet-Rich Plasma, Platelet-Rich Fibrin, and Concentrated Growth Factor) Combined with Bone Graft: A Systematic Review.
BACKGROUND
The current review aims to provide an overview of the most recent research on the potentials of concentrated growth factors used in the maxillary sinus lift technique.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
"PRP", "PRF", "L-PRF", "CGF", "oral surgery", "sticky bone", "sinus lift" were the search terms utilized in the databases Scopus, Web of Science, and Pubmed, with the Boolean operator "AND" and "OR".
RESULTS
Of these 1534 studies, 22 publications were included for this review.
DISCUSSION
The autologous growth factors released from platelet concentrates can help to promote bone remodeling and cell proliferation, and the application of platelet concentrates appears to reduce the amount of autologous bone required during regenerative surgery. Many authors agree that growth factors considerably enhance early vascularization in bone grafts and have a significantly positive pro-angiogenic influence in vivo when combined with alloplastic and xenogeneic materials, reducing inflammation and postoperative pain and stimulating the regeneration of injured tissues and accelerating their healing.
CONCLUSIONS
Even if further studies are still needed, the use of autologous platelet concentrates can improve clinical results where a large elevation of the sinus is needed by improving bone height, thickness and vascularization of surgical sites, and post-operative healing.
Topics: Maxillary Sinus; Bone Regeneration; Platelet-Rich Plasma; Intercellular Signaling Peptides and Proteins; Fibrin
PubMed: 37443831
DOI: 10.3390/cells12131797 -
Journal of Neurology Sep 2021Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), a novel coronavirus, is responsible for the outbreak of coronavirus disease 19 (COVID-19) and was first... (Review)
Review
Neurological symptoms, manifestations, and complications associated with severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) and coronavirus disease 19 (COVID-19).
Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), a novel coronavirus, is responsible for the outbreak of coronavirus disease 19 (COVID-19) and was first identified in Wuhan, China in December 2019. It is evident that the COVID-19 pandemic has become a challenging world issue. Although most COVID-19 patients primarily develop respiratory symptoms, an increasing number of neurological symptoms and manifestations associated with COVID-19 have been observed. In this narrative review, we elaborate on proposed neurotropic mechanisms and various neurological symptoms, manifestations, and complications of COVID-19 reported in the present literature. For this purpose, a review of all current published literature (studies, case reports, case series, reviews, editorials, and other articles) was conducted and neurological sequelae of COVID-19 were summarized. Essential and common neurological symptoms including gustatory and olfactory dysfunctions, myalgia, headache, altered mental status, confusion, delirium, and dizziness are presented separately in sections. Moreover, neurological manifestations and complications that are of great concern such as stroke, cerebral (sinus) venous thrombosis, seizures, meningoencephalitis, Guillain-Barré syndrome, Miller Fisher syndrome, acute myelitis, and posterior reversible encephalopathy syndrome (PRES) are also addressed systematically. Future studies that examine the impact of neurological symptoms and manifestations on the course of the disease are needed to further clarify and assess the link between neurological complications and the clinical outcome of patients with COVID-19. To limit long-term consequences, it is crucial that healthcare professionals can early detect possible neurological symptoms and are well versed in the increasingly common neurological manifestations and complications of COVID-19.
Topics: COVID-19; Headache; Humans; Nervous System Diseases; Pandemics; Posterior Leukoencephalopathy Syndrome; SARS-CoV-2
PubMed: 33486564
DOI: 10.1007/s00415-021-10406-y -
Acta Otorhinolaryngologica Italica :... Dec 2018Facial pain remains a diagnostic and therapeutic challenge for both clinicians and patients. In clinical practice, patients suffering from facial pain generally undergo... (Review)
Review
Facial pain remains a diagnostic and therapeutic challenge for both clinicians and patients. In clinical practice, patients suffering from facial pain generally undergo multiple repeated consultations with different specialists and receive various treatments, including surgery. Many patients, as well as their primary care physicians, mistakenly attribute their pain as being due to rhinosinusitis when this is not the case. It is important to exclude non-sinus-related causes of facial pain before considering sinus surgery to avoid inappropriate treatment. Unfortunately, a significant proportion of patients have persistent facial pain after endoscopic sinus surgery (ESS) due to erroneous considerations on aetiology of facial pain by physicians. It should be taken into account that neurological and sinus diseases may share overlapping symptoms, but they frequently co-exist as comorbidities. The aim of this review was to clarify the diagnostic criteria of facial pain in order to improve discrimination between sinogenic and non-sinogenic facial pain and provide some clinical and diagnostic criteria that may help clinicians in addressing differential diagnosis.
Topics: Facial Pain; Humans; Rhinitis; Sinusitis
PubMed: 30623894
DOI: 10.14639/0392-100X-1721