The maxillary sinus floor elevation procedure has gained popularity with predictable results, and is a safe, acceptable technique for bone augmentation, providing a base for dental implant treatment. Faint radiopaque lesions at the base of the maxillary sinus are frequent diagnoses on radiographs and must be identified during dental implant planning. The use of autografts, xenografts, allografts, and alloplasts or a combination between them has been demonstrated to be effective for increasing bone height and bone volume in maxillary sinus. The objective of this study was to evaluate the outcome of subjects with considerable sinus membrane pathology (test group) undergoing maxillary sinus floor augmentation using Platelet Rich Fibrin (PRF) as a filling material, in association with the Bio-Oss and Sint-Oss and simultaneous implant placement in a one-stage surgical procedure. All patients reported no pain to percussion, no sign of tissue suffering to the soft peri-implant tissues, the presence of an optimal primary stability of the inserted implants, and the increase in the peri-implant bone density. No complications were encountered during follow-up periods in these patients, including no negative evolution in the sinusitis and all implants are functioning successfully. In conclusion, the use of PRF and Piezosurgery reduced the healing time, favoring optimal bone regeneration and allowing sinus membrane integrity to be maintained during surgical procedures, according to evidence-based dentistry.

The chapter focuses on national security surveillance by spy agencies. The safeguards afforded for privacy under the law of national security surveillance in the U.S. and the EU appear to be motivated as much, if not more, by national self-interest as by a universal right to privacy. In the U.S., the law has traditionally protected the privacy rights of insiders far more assiduously than those of outsiders. In the EU, there is no power to act internally in the national security domain, but it has certain powers to regulate privacy externally, by setting the terms of intelligence-agency access to EU personal data. There are currently four such EU–U.S. agreements in place. Unsurprisingly, given the bilateral nature of these agreements, they reflect the traditional, self-interested logic of international law designed to further the interests of the parties to the agreement rather than the broader international community.

No abstract

Ce document est protégé par la loi sur le droit d'auteur. L'utilisation des services d'Érudit (y compris la reproduction) est assujettie à sa politique d'utilisation que vous pouvez consulter en ligne. https://apropos.erudit.org/fr/usagers/politique-dutilisation/ Cet article est diffusé et préservé par Érudit.Érudit est un consortium interuniversitaire sans but lucratif composé de l

Can we translate the expression “droits de la personnalité” or “Persönlichkeitsrechte” into English? Is the notion of “personality” an equivalent of the continental “personnalité” or “Persönlichkeit”? This paper will deal with these questions from the perspective of comparative law. After a brief survey of the uses of the notion “personality right” in some selected civil law and common law jurisdictions, the attention will be focused on the early history and the modern development of this category, with the aim of providing some insight into the distinctive features of the continental idea of “protecting personality”. In the conclusion, two different conceptions of safeguarding personhood in private law will be contrasted, and it will be clarified to what extent the civilian droits de la personnalité should be regarded as an intraduisible.