Background/Aim: Implant treatment expands extensively the possibilities of prosthetic treatment, which provide benefits, bigger comfort as well as general improvement of the patient’s life quality. In cases with no possibility of implantation, it is possible to improve conditions by using modern methods for bone tissue repair. One of factors important for the long-term success is proper oral hygiene, as well as raising awareness of its importance to patients. The aim of the paper is to present a patient rehabilitated with multiple implants and followed-up for a five-year period, and to point out the importance of raising patient’s awareness and motivation in order to preserve the results of the treatment.
Case Report: A 31-year-old patient was admitted to the oral surgery clinic for rehabilitation of a poor oral health status. After taking history, clinical examination and additional analysis, the following treatment plan was suggested: to remove impacted upper canines and to put an implant supported by fixed prosthesis in the upper jaw, to make two implants supported by bridges laterally and one dental supported by bridge in the inter-canine sector in the lower jaw. The treatment was carried out in several stages that involved extraction of residual roots and impacted teeth, augmentation of bone defects with bone substitutes and bio-absorbable membranes, placing implant, and prosthetic rehabilitation. By verbal communication with the patient, we pointed out the importance of proper oral hygiene and regular check-ups. The five year follow-up showed the absence of factors that could adversely affect the success of the treatment, and the patient was still highly motivated to maintain proper oral hygiene.
Conclusions: It is possible to achieve predictable results in complex cases by using a multiphase prosthetic treatment supported by implants. Concerning a long-term success, motivation, proper information and patient’s willingness to cooperate play an important role.
Yugoslavian Shepherd Dog - Sharplanina (YSD) is a livestock guard dog from the Western Balkans present in this region over a long time, but recognized by the Fédération Cynologique Internationale as a distinct breed as late as 1957. However, the information regarding the origin and the size of the breed’s foundation stock is still lacking. In order to contribute towards better understanding of the genetic make-up of the YSD and its foundation stock, we re-analyzed previously generated genetic profiles of 94 registered YSD dogs assessed with nine nuclear microsatellites. Studied individuals comprised 90 unrelated dogs and two pairs of full-sibs, sampled at four sampling sites: three dog shows and at a military training centre for dogs in Serbia. We supported earlier findings on high levels of genetic diversity in YSD (HE=0.728±0.027) and lack of inbreeding, and revealed substructure of the breed because we found two distinct gene pools in the Bayesian clustering analysis, indicated also by the excess of homozygotes (i.e., Wahlund effect) and outcomes of other analyses: linkage disequilibrium tests, Neighbour-Joining tree, principal coordinates and two-dimensional scaling analyses. The two gene pools were almost equally represented at each sampling site. One gene pool was composed of individuals with high genetic integrity, while the other gene pool was characterized with admixed ancestry, developed possibly via hybridization with native breeding stock outside the registry system, other breeds, such as the Caucasian Shepherd, and/or individuals admixed with wolves. Thus, we demonstrate rather complex and diverse ancestry implying a genetically heterogeneous foundation stock of the YSD.
Studies that evaluated endocan levels in nonalcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD) and liver fibrosis are scarce. We aimed to explore endocan levels in relation to different stages of liver diseases, such as NAFLD, as determined with fatty liver index (FLI) and liver fibrosis, as assessed with BARD score.
A total of 147 participants with FLI≥60 were compared with 64 participants with FLI <30. An FLI score was calculated using waist circumference, body mass index, gamma-glutamyl transferase and triglycerides. Patients with FLI≥60 were further divided into those with no/mild fibrosis (BARD score 0–1 point; n=23) and advanced fibrosis (BARD score 2–4 points; n=124). BARD score was calculated as follows: diabetes mellitus (1 point) + body mass index≥28 kg/m2 (1 point) + aspartate amino transferase/alanine aminotransferase ratio≥0.8 (2 points).
Endocan was independent predictor for FLI and BARD score, both in univariate [OR=1.255 (95% CI= 1.104–1.426), P=0.001; OR=1.208 (95% CI=1.029– 1.419), P=0.021, respectively] and multivariate binary logistic regression analysis [OR=1.287 (95% CI=1.055– 1.570), P=0.013; OR=1.226 (95% CI=1.022–1.470), P=0.028, respectively]. Endocan as a single predictor showed poor discriminatory capability for steatosis/fibrosis [AUC=0.648; (95% CI=0.568–0.727), P=0.002; AUC= 0.667 (95% CI=0.555–0.778), P=0.013, respectively], whereas in a Model, endocan showed an excellent clinical accuracy [AUC=0.930; (95% CI=0.886–0.975), P<0.001, AUC=0.840 (95% CI=0.763–0.918), P<0.001, respectively].
Endocan independently correlated with both FLI and BARD score. However, when tested in models (with other biomarkers), endocan showed better discriminatory ability for liver steatosis/fibrosis, instead of its usage as a single biomarker.