Publications by authors named "Scott Silverstein"

6 Publications

  • Page 1 of 1

Immediate Implant Solution to Improve Long-Term Esthetics, Enhance Patient Satisfaction.

Compend Contin Educ Dent 2021 Apr;42(4):g1-g4

Faculty Member, Advanced Education in General Dentistry Residency Program, University of Cincinnati Medical Center; Private Practice limited to Periodontics and Dental Implants, Milford, Ohio; Diplomate, American Board of Periodontology; Diplomate, International Congress of Oral Implantologists.

Fixed prostheses offer various advantages over conventional removable devices for immediate restoration of a fractured tooth in the esthetic zone. In this case report, a fixed solution is employed through the use of a same-day provisional restoration attached to an immediately placed dental implant. Utilizing biologics and an implant system that allows for excellent primary stability, this treatment modality offers a predictable method for achieving immediate implant placement and provisionalization. The minimally invasive technique facilitates the development and maintenance of soft- and hard-tissue contours to enable an optimal result in the final restoration.
View Article and Find Full Text PDF

Download full-text PDF

Source
April 2021

Osseointegration Foundation Charity Overdenture Program Study.

Int J Periodontics Restorative Dent 2020 Mar/Apr;40(2):279-283

This investigation has been stimulated by the Osseointegration Foundation, working in conjunction with the Zest Anchors implant company. There are three basic valuable activities that emerge from a professional foundation, which were reflected in this case study. They include disseminating information to practitioners, to persuade young clinicians to become research investigators, and to reach out to patients in need of treatment who cannot afford it without a charitable opportunity.
View Article and Find Full Text PDF

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://dx.doi.org/10.11607/prd.4531DOI Listing
February 2020

National evaluation of prescriber drug dispensing.

Pharmacotherapy 2014 Oct 23;34(10):1012-21. Epub 2014 Jul 23.

Department of Pharmacotherapy, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, Utah; Department of Internal Medicine, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, Utah.

Objective: To describe the legal, professional, and consumer status of prescribers dispensing legend and over-the-counter drugs in the United States.

Methods: Legal and academic databases were searched to identify those states that permit prescribers to dispense medications to patients and any limitations on such practice. In addition, prescribers and patients-consumers were surveyed to learn about the prevalence and perceptions of such practice. The use of drug samples was explicitly excluded from the study.

Main Results: Surveys were obtained from 556 physicians, 64 NPs, and 999 patient-consumers of drugs dispensed by prescribers. Forty-four states authorize prescriber dispensing. Midlevel practitioners (i.e., NPs and physician assistants) are authorized to dispense in 43 states. Thirty-two states do not require dispensing prescribers to compete additional registration to dispense medications, and 30 states require some level of compliance with pharmacy practice requirements. Prescriber dispensing is common, independent of patient age or insurance coverage. Prescriber dispensing appears driven by physician and patient perceptions of convenience and cost reductions. Future dispensing is likely to increase due to consumers' satisfaction with the practice. Consumer self-reported adverse drug reactions (ADRs) were equivalent between pharmacist- and physician-dispensed drugs, but urgent and emergency clinic ADR consultations were slightly lower with physician dispensing.

Conclusions: Prescriber dispensing is firmly entrenched in the U.S. health care system, is likely to increase, does not appear to increase ADRs, and may reduce urgent care and emergency department visits. The reduction in urgent care and emergency department visits requires further study to confirm these preliminary findings.
View Article and Find Full Text PDF

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/phar.1461DOI Listing
October 2014

Cost effectiveness of liposomal doxorubicin vs. paclitaxel for the treatment of advanced AIDS-Kaposi's sarcoma.

J Med Econ 2013 1;16(5):606-13. Epub 2013 Mar 1.

University of Utah, Pharmacotherapy Outcomes Research Center, Salt Lake City, UT 84108, USA.

Objective: Epidemic Kaposi's sarcoma (KS) is one of the most common acquired immune deficiency syndrome (AIDS) defining malignancies, a disease with stigmatized clinical features that characterizes the diagnosis of AIDS. This study aims to perform a cost-effectiveness analysis between liposomal doxorubicin and paclitaxel in treating AIDS-KS.

Methods: A 21 week decision tree analysis was created using a hospital perspective to compare treatment patterns with liposomal doxorubicin and paclitaxel. All costs were calculated in 2011 US dollars and obtained from an academic treatment center. Acquisition costs were obtained from public estimates using wholesale acquisition cost (WAC). Effectiveness was estimated based on a Phase 3 study of liposomal doxorubicin and paclitaxel (Von-Roenn et al.). Adverse events (AEs) associated with treatment and not the disease were included in the analysis. One-way sensitivity analysis was performed to test the robustness of the results.

Results: Cost minimization analysis showed that treatment with liposomal doxorubicin was $18,125 whereas paclitaxel costs $12,347. After accounting for response rate, the results showed that liposomal doxorubicin costs $39,403 versus $21,661 for paclitaxel. This study has some limitations. Clinical data were derived from different clinical trials. In addition, many assumptions were made.

Conclusion: Paclitaxel is dominant due to its lower acquisition cost and high response rate. Acquisition cost of liposomal doxorubicin and paclitaxel are significantly different. After accounting for all the factors that contribute to cost and response rate, paclitaxel is more cost effective than liposomal doxorubicin.
View Article and Find Full Text PDF

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://dx.doi.org/10.3111/13696998.2013.777347DOI Listing
November 2013

Parenteral iron therapy: a single institution's experience over a 5-year period.

J Natl Compr Canc Netw 2005 Nov;3(6):791-5

Department of Pharmacy Services, Huntsman Cancer Institute, Salt Lake City, UT 84132, USA.

Many patients require parenteral iron therapy for optimal correction of anemia, including cancer patients who require erythropoietic drugs. Available parenteral iron therapy options include iron dextran, iron gluconate, and iron sucrose. The purpose of this study is to summarize our institution's experience with parenteral iron therapy over a 5-year period, with a focus on comparative safety profiles. All patients receiving parenteral iron therapy over this period were included in the analysis. Chi-squared test and Fisher's exact test were used to compare the adverse event rates of each product. A total of 121 patients received 444 infusions of parenteral iron over this period. Iron dextran was the most commonly used product (85 patients) and iron sucrose was the least used (2 patients). Iron gluconate was used by 34 patients. Overall adverse event rates per patient with iron dextran and iron gluconate were 16.5% and 5.8%, respectively (P = .024). Premedication with diphenhydramine and acetaminophen before infusions of iron dextran reduced adverse event rates per infusion from 12.3% to 4.4% (P = .054). Test doses of iron dextran were used 88% of the time for initial infusions of iron dextran. All adverse events for all parenteral iron products were mild or moderate. There were no serious adverse events and no anaphylaxis was observed. Our results suggest that, if test doses and premedications are used, iron dextran is an acceptable product to treat iron deficiency.
View Article and Find Full Text PDF

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://dx.doi.org/10.6004/jnccn.2005.0047DOI Listing
November 2005

Parenteral iron therapy options.

Am J Hematol 2004 May;76(1):74-8

Department of Pharmacy Services, University of Utah Health Sciences Center, Salt Lake City, Utah 84132, USA.

Parenteral iron therapy is occasionally necessary for patients intolerant or unresponsive to oral iron therapy, for receiving recombinant erythropoietin therapy, or for use in treating functional iron deficiency. There are now three parenteral iron products available: iron dextran, ferric gluconate, and iron sucrose. We summarize the advantages and disadvantages of each product, including risk of anaphylaxis and hypersensitivity, dosage regimens, and costs. The increased availability of multiple parenteral iron preparations should decrease the need to use red cell transfusions in patients with iron-deficiency anemia.
View Article and Find Full Text PDF

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/ajh.20056DOI Listing
May 2004