Publications by authors named "Aws Ahmed"

2 Publications

  • Page 1 of 1

Engineered glycomaterial implants orchestrate large-scale functional repair of brain tissue chronically after severe traumatic brain injury.

Sci Adv 2021 Mar 5;7(10). Epub 2021 Mar 5.

Regenerative Bioscience Center, University of Georgia, Athens, GA 30602, USA.

Severe traumatic brain injury (sTBI) survivors experience permanent functional disabilities due to significant volume loss and the brain's poor capacity to regenerate. Chondroitin sulfate glycosaminoglycans (CS-GAGs) are key regulators of growth factor signaling and neural stem cell homeostasis in the brain. However, the efficacy of engineered CS (eCS) matrices in mediating structural and functional recovery chronically after sTBI has not been investigated. We report that neurotrophic factor functionalized acellular eCS matrices implanted into the rat M1 region acutely after sTBI significantly enhanced cellular repair and gross motor function recovery when compared to controls 20 weeks after sTBI. Animals subjected to M2 region injuries followed by eCS matrix implantations demonstrated the significant recovery of "reach-to-grasp" function. This was attributed to enhanced volumetric vascularization, activity-regulated cytoskeleton (Arc) protein expression, and perilesional sensorimotor connectivity. These findings indicate that eCS matrices implanted acutely after sTBI can support complex cellular, vascular, and neuronal circuit repair chronically after sTBI.
View Article and Find Full Text PDF

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://dx.doi.org/10.1126/sciadv.abe0207DOI Listing
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7935369PMC
March 2021

The Anesthetic Efficacy of Articaine and Lidocaine in Equivalent Doses as Buccal and Non-Palatal Infiltration for Maxillary Molar Extraction: A Randomized, Double-Blinded, Placebo-Controlled Clinical Trial.

J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2018 04 27;76(4):737-743. Epub 2017 Nov 27.

Assistant Lecturer, Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, College of Dentistry, University of Mosul, Mosul, Iraq.

Purpose: The purpose of the present study was to evaluate the anesthetic adequacy of 4% articaine 1.8 mL versus 2% lidocaine 3.6 mL without palatal injection compared with the standard technique for the extraction of maxillary molar teeth.

Materials And Methods: This randomized, double-blinded, placebo-controlled clinical trial included patients requiring extraction of 1 maxillary molar under local anesthesia. Patients were randomly distributed into 1 of 3 groups: group A received 4% articaine 1.8 mL as a buccal injection and 0.2 mL as a palatal injection, group B received 4% articaine 1.8 mL plus normal saline 0.2 mL as a palatal injection, and group C received 2% lidocaine 3.6 mL plus normal saline 0.2 mL as a palatal injection. Pain was measured during injection, 8 minutes afterward, and during extraction using a visual analog scale. Initial palatal anesthesia and patients' satisfaction were measured using a 5-score verbal rating scale. Statistical analyses included descriptive statistics, analysis of variance, and Pearson χ test. Differences with a P value less than .05 were considered significant.

Results: Eighty-four patients were included in the study. The average pain of injection was comparable among all study groups (P = .933). Pain during extraction in the articaine group was significantly less than that experienced in the placebo groups (P < .001), although the differences between placebo groups were insignificant. Satisfaction scores were significantly higher in the articaine group compared with the placebo groups (P < .001), with comparable results between placebo groups.

Conclusions: Although the anesthetic effects of single placebo-controlled buccal injections of 4% articaine and 2% lidocaine were comparable, the level of anesthetic adequacy was statistically less than that achieved by 4% articaine given by the standard technique. These results do not justify the buccal and non-palatal infiltration of articaine or lidocaine as an effective alternative to the standard technique in the extraction of maxillary molar teeth.
View Article and Find Full Text PDF

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.joms.2017.11.028DOI Listing
April 2018
-->