Abstract: Purpose: Drug gingival hyperplasia is an uncommon pathology encountered during routine work in dental units. The purpose of this paper is to present the clinical appearance of gingival hyperplasia caused by medications. There are already three classes of medications that cause hyperplasia and based on data from the literature, the clinical cases encountered and included in this study have been compared. Materials and Methods: The study was conducted in a total of 311 patients, out of which 182 patients were included in our study, meeting the inclusion criteria. After each patient's history was recorded and it was found that patients were in their knowledge of chronic illness, undergoing treatment of gingivitis hypertrophic drugs was performed with a clinical examination of oral cavity and assessment by vertical and horizontal evaluation according to the periodontal indexes. Results: Of the data collected during the study, it was observed that 97% of patients with gingival hyperplasia are treated with nifedipine. 84% of patients treated with selected medicines and gingival hyperplasia in the oral cavity has been exposed at time period for more than 1 year and 1 month. According to the GOI, in the first rank of this index are about 21% of patients, in the second rank are 52%, in the third rank are 24% and in the fourth grade are 3%. According to the horizontal growth index of gingival hyperplasia, grade 1 included about 61% of patients and grade 2 included about 39% of patients with gingival hyperplasia. Bacterial index divides patients by degrees: grading 0 - 8.2%, grading 1 - 32.4%, grading 2 - 14% and grading 3 - 45.1%. Conclusions: The highest percentage of gingival hyperplasia caused by drugs is due to dosing of nifedipine for a duration of dosing and application for systemic healing for more than 1 year.
Abstract: The Regional Conference to Restructure Psychiatric Care in Latin America, convened by the Pan American Health Organization (PAHO) in 1990, oriented the Brazilian Federal Act in 2001 that stipulated the psychiatric reform which requires deinstitutionalization and community-based treatment. Since then, the 15 years’ experience of different working teams in mental health led an academic working group – supervisors from personal practices, professors and researchers – to discuss certain clinical issues, as well as supervisions, and to organize colloquia in different cities as a methodology. These colloquia count on the participation of different working teams from the cities in which they are held, with team members with different levels of educational degrees and prior experiences, in order to increase dialogue right where it does not always appear to be possible. The principal aim of these colloquia is to gain interlocution between practitioners and academics. Working with the theory of case constructions, this methodology revealed itself helpful in unfolding new solutions. The paper also observes that there is not always harmony between what the psychiatric reform demands and clinical ethics.
Abstract: Stress causes deleterious effects to the physical, psychological and organizational levels, which highlight the need to use effective coping strategies to deal with it. Several coping models exist, but they don’t integrate the different strategies in a coherent way nor do they take into account the new research on the emotional coping and acceptance of the stressful situation. To fill these gaps, an integrative model incorporating the main coping strategies was developed. This model arises from the review of the scientific literature on coping and from a qualitative study carried out among workers with low or high levels of stress, as well as from an analysis of clinical cases. The model allows one to understand under what circumstances the strategies are effective or ineffective and to learn how one might use them more wisely. It includes Specific Strategies in controllable situations (the Modification of the Situation and the Resignation-Disempowerment), Specific Strategies in non-controllable situations (Acceptance and Stubborn Relentlessness) as well as so-called General Strategies (Wellbeing and Avoidance). This study is intended to undertake and present the process of development and validation of an instrument to measure coping strategies based on this model. An initial pool of items has been generated from the conceptual definitions and three expert judges have validated the content. Of these, 18 items have been selected for a short form questionnaire. A sample of 300 students and employees from a Quebec university was used for the validation of the questionnaire. Concerning the reliability of the instrument, the indices observed following the inter-rater agreement (Krippendorff’s alpha) and the calculation of the coefficients for internal consistency (Cronbach's alpha) are satisfactory. To evaluate the construct validity, a confirmatory factor analysis using MPlus supports the existence of a model with six factors. The results of this analysis suggest also that this configuration is superior to other alternative models. The correlations show that the factors are only loosely related to each other. Overall, the analyses carried out suggest that the instrument has good psychometric qualities and demonstrates the relevance of further work to establish predictive validity and reconfirm its structure. This instrument will help researchers and clinicians better understand and assess coping strategies to cope with stress and thus prevent mental health issues.