Objective To compare the effectiveness of two different exercise-based programs through telerehabilitation in patients with coronavirus disease 2019. Design Randomized, controlled, parallel, double-blinded, three-arm clinical trial. Setting Patients’ homes through telerehabilitation devices. Subjects Subjects with coronavirus disease 2019 in the acute phase. Interventions Subjects were divided into three groups: breathing exercises group, strength exercises group or no treatment/control group. Main measures We analysed visual analogue scale for fatigue, 6-minute walking test, 30-seconds sit-to-stand test, multidimensional dyspnoea-12 questionnaire and Borg scale at baseline and 14 days later. Results From 93 subjects recruited, 88 were enrolled, and 77 patients (mean [SD] age 39.40 [11.71]) completed the 14-days intervention and were included in the analysis: 26 in strength exercises group, 29 in breathing exercises group and 22 in control group. The intergroup analysis shows significant differences between the study groups and control group in all variables ( p < 0.05); Borg scale, multidimensional dyspnoea-12 questionnaire (pre–post intervention score: strength exercises group: 7.85 [6.82] – 4.54[4.82], breathing exercises group: 11.04 [6.49] – 5.32 [3.63], control group: 10.27 [6.49] – 10.59[6.58]), visual analogue scale for fatigue, 6-minute walking test and 30-seconds sit-to-stand test (pre–post intervention score: strength exercises group: 12.19 [4.42] – 13.58 [5.37], breathing exercises group: 11.18 [3.42] – 12.79 [4.00], control group: 10.45 [2.15] – 9.86[1.88]). The greatest effect sizes were found in the variables Borg Scale ( R2 = 0.548) and multidimensional dyspnoea-12 questionnaire ( R2 = 0.475). Conclusions Strength exercises group and breathing exercises group obtained significant improvements in fatigue, dyspnoea, perceived effort, and physical state, compared to control group, although the greatest benefits were found for dyspnoea and aerobic capacity in breathing exercises group.

The present study describes a case of endodontic sealer (AH Plus) penetration within and along the mandibular canal from the periapical zone of a lower second molar after endodontic treatment. The clinical manifestations comprised anesthesia of the left side of the lower lip, paresthesia and anesthesia of the gums in the third quadrant, and paresthesia and anesthesia of the left mental nerve, appearing immediately after endodontic treatment. The paresthesia and anesthesia of the lip and gums were seen to decrease, but the mental nerve paresthesia and anesthesia persisted after 3.5 years. This case illustrates the need to expend great care with all endodontic techniques when performing nonsurgical root canal therapy, especially when the root apices are in close proximity to vital anatomic structures such as the inferior alveolar canal.

No abstract

No abstract

BackgroundRadical surgical resection as a treatment modality for oral cancer often leads to an extensive deficit in both the maxillary and mandibular levels, where the use of a palatal obturator prosthesis (POP) or removable partial denture (RPP). The aim of this study was to evaluate the treatment with POP and RPP in patients treated for oral cancer in the Unit of Prosthetic Rehabilitation of the University Hospital Virgen del Rocío in a period of 20 years.Material and MethodsRetrospective descriptive study during the years 1991 and 2011 analyzing oral cancer type, characteristics, treatment and follow-up. The sample consisted of patients whose tumor had previously been removed and who had been referred to the Oncological Rehabilitation Unit of the Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery Unit of the “Virgen del Rocío” University Hospital for rehabilitation. The inclusion criteria were patients whose underlying pathology was any type of neoplasia, which after its treatment had been referred to the aforementioned Oncological Prosthetic Rehabilitation unit.ResultsOf the 45 patients included in our study, 15 patients were rehabilitated with palatal obturator (33.3%) and 5 patients with removable partial denture (11.1%). The mean age of the sample of patients with POP was 57.3 ± 9.23, while the mean age of the sample of patients with RPP was 58 ± 13.5. The most common underlying pathology in patients with POP was squamous cell carcinoma (60%), whereas in patients with RPP it was 100%. The most frequent location found among POP patients was the upper jaw, while in the PRP patients there was no predominant location. The univariate and multivariate logistic regressions did not show any statistically significant association between the independent variables age, sex, smoking habit and alcoholic habit with the dependent variable type of rehabilitating prosthesis.ConclusionsBased on our data, we can conclude that RPP is used in few cases of oncological rehabilitation. The POP has a greater use, as long as the defect in the bones of the facial middle third is limited. Key words:Head and neck cancer, reconstructive surgery, Palatal obturators, removable partial dentures.