The logic of the classical language - Cronologia

Gianni il 17:19, 12 giu 2025

2025-06-12T17:19:16Z

← Versione meno recente		Versione delle 17:19, 12 giu 2025
Riga 7:		Riga 7:
	\| autore3 = Flavio Frisardi		\| autore3 = Flavio Frisardi
	}}		}}

			<div class="chapter-content">
	'''Abstract:''' This chapter explores the complexities of medical language, particularly within the context of diagnosis and treatment of Temporomandibular Disorders (TMD) and Orofacial Pain (OP). Medical language often leads to misunderstandings due to its hybrid nature, blending everyday language with specialized terms, which can be interpreted differently across medical disciplines. This is exemplified in the clinical case of Mary Poppins, who has suffered from OP for over a decade, with conflicting diagnoses from a dentist and a neurologist. The dentist diagnosed her with TMD based on clinical tests like axiography, electromyography (EMG), and radiographic imaging, while the neurologist attributed her pain to a neuromotor disorder (nOP).		'''Abstract:''' This chapter explores the complexities of medical language, particularly within the context of diagnosis and treatment of Temporomandibular Disorders (TMD) and Orofacial Pain (OP). Medical language often leads to misunderstandings due to its hybrid nature, blending everyday language with specialized terms, which can be interpreted differently across medical disciplines. This is exemplified in the clinical case of Mary Poppins, who has suffered from OP for over a decade, with conflicting diagnoses from a dentist and a neurologist. The dentist diagnosed her with TMD based on clinical tests like axiography, electromyography (EMG), and radiographic imaging, while the neurologist attributed her pain to a neuromotor disorder (nOP).

Gianni il 14:23, 12 giu 2025

2025-06-12T14:23:02Z

Mostra modifiche

Gianni il 17:32, 2 mag 2025

2025-05-02T17:32:04Z

← Versione meno recente		Versione delle 17:32, 2 mag 2025
Riga 1:		Riga 1:
	.		{{Tooltip\|<Sup>[1]</Sup>\|%%SEGMENTO_0%%\|<small>🧪 Cross-sectional study analyzing dental innovations of the last 30 years, identifying those that practicing dentists believe have most influenced patient care. 🧬 Thirty experts from the International Association for Dental Research selected the most relevant innovations, which were then surveyed among U.S. dentists who graduated before 1995 and are clinically active for over 50% of the time. 🧩 The most cited innovations were adhesive materials (74.5%), dental implants (71.9%), direct bonding (71.2%), magnifying lenses (54.7%), universal infection control precautions (48.6%), and digital imaging (46.0%), with differences between generalists and specialists: oral surgeons and periodontists (OMSPER) also favored CBCT (74%) and regenerative techniques (68%). The general consensus highlights the importance of implants, imaging, lenses, and universal precautions; generalists value adhesive materials and bonding, while specialists cite CBCT and tissue engineering. 📌 The study concludes that innovations with direct clinical impact are perceived as the most significant, suggesting that future research should also consider cost-effectiveness and patient perception.</small>\|}}
			{{Bib}}

Gianni: Pagina sostituita con '.'

2025-05-02T17:17:54Z

Pagina sostituita con '.'

← Versione meno recente		Versione delle 17:17, 2 mag 2025
Riga 1:		Riga 1:
	~~{{Tooltip\|%%SEGMENTO_0%%\|<small>🧪 Cross-sectional study analyzing dental innovations over the past 30 years, identifying those that practicing dentists believe have most influenced patient care~~. 🧬 Thirty experts from the International Association for Dental Research selected the most relevant innovations, which were then surveyed among U.S. dentists who graduated before 1995 and have been clinically active for over 50% of the time. 🧩 The most cited innovations were adhesive materials (74.5%), dental implants (71.9%), direct bonding (71.2%), magnifying lenses (54.7%), universal infection control precautions (48.6%), and digital imaging (46.0%), with differences between generalists and specialists: oral surgeons and periodontists (OMSPER) also favored CBCT (74%) and regenerative techniques (68%). There is general consensus on the importance of implants, imaging, lenses, and universal precautions; generalists value adhesive materials and bonding, while specialists cite CBCT and tissue engineering. 📌 The study concludes that innovations with direct clinical impact are perceived as the most significant, suggesting that future research should also consider cost-effectiveness and patient perception.</small>\|}}		.
	~~{{Bib}}~~

Gianni il 17:04, 2 mag 2025

2025-05-02T17:04:58Z

← Versione meno recente		Versione delle 17:04, 2 mag 2025
Riga 1:		Riga 1:
	-		{{Tooltip\|%%SEGMENTO_0%%\|<small>🧪 Cross-sectional study analyzing dental innovations over the past 30 years, identifying those that practicing dentists believe have most influenced patient care. 🧬 Thirty experts from the International Association for Dental Research selected the most relevant innovations, which were then surveyed among U.S. dentists who graduated before 1995 and have been clinically active for over 50% of the time. 🧩 The most cited innovations were adhesive materials (74.5%), dental implants (71.9%), direct bonding (71.2%), magnifying lenses (54.7%), universal infection control precautions (48.6%), and digital imaging (46.0%), with differences between generalists and specialists: oral surgeons and periodontists (OMSPER) also favored CBCT (74%) and regenerative techniques (68%). There is general consensus on the importance of implants, imaging, lenses, and universal precautions; generalists value adhesive materials and bonding, while specialists cite CBCT and tissue engineering. 📌 The study concludes that innovations with direct clinical impact are perceived as the most significant, suggesting that future research should also consider cost-effectiveness and patient perception.</small>\|}}
			{{Bib}}

Gianni: Pagina sostituita con '-'

2025-05-02T17:04:37Z

Pagina sostituita con '-'

← Versione meno recente		Versione delle 17:04, 2 mag 2025
Riga 1:		Riga 1:
	~~{{Tooltip\|<sup>[2]</sup>\|%%SEGMENTO_0%%\|<small>🧪 Cross~~-sectional study analyzing dental innovations from the last 30 years, identifying those that practicing dentists believe have most influenced patient care. 🧬 Thirty experts from the International Association for Dental Research selected the most relevant innovations, which were then surveyed among U.S. dentists who graduated before 1995 and have been clinically active for over 50% of the time. 🧩 The most cited innovations were adhesive materials (74.5%), dental implants (71.9%), direct bonding (71.2%), magnifying lenses (54.7%), universal infection control precautions (48.6%), and digital imaging (46.0%), with differences between generalists and specialists: oral surgeons and periodontologists (OMSPER) also favored CBCT (74%) and regenerative techniques (68%). There is general consensus on the importance of implants, imaging, lenses, and universal precautions; generalists value adhesive materials and bonding, while specialists cite CBCT and tissue engineering. 📌 The study concludes that innovations with direct clinical impact are perceived as the most significant, suggesting that future research should also consider cost-effectiveness and patient perception.</small>\|}}		-
	~~{{Bib}}~~

Gianni il 17:01, 2 mag 2025

2025-05-02T17:01:54Z

← Versione meno recente		Versione delle 17:01, 2 mag 2025
Riga 1:		Riga 1:
	.		{{Tooltip\|<sup>[2]</sup>\|%%SEGMENTO_0%%\|<small>🧪 Cross-sectional study analyzing dental innovations from the last 30 years, identifying those that practicing dentists believe have most influenced patient care. 🧬 Thirty experts from the International Association for Dental Research selected the most relevant innovations, which were then surveyed among U.S. dentists who graduated before 1995 and have been clinically active for over 50% of the time. 🧩 The most cited innovations were adhesive materials (74.5%), dental implants (71.9%), direct bonding (71.2%), magnifying lenses (54.7%), universal infection control precautions (48.6%), and digital imaging (46.0%), with differences between generalists and specialists: oral surgeons and periodontologists (OMSPER) also favored CBCT (74%) and regenerative techniques (68%). There is general consensus on the importance of implants, imaging, lenses, and universal precautions; generalists value adhesive materials and bonding, while specialists cite CBCT and tissue engineering. 📌 The study concludes that innovations with direct clinical impact are perceived as the most significant, suggesting that future research should also consider cost-effectiveness and patient perception.</small>\|}}
			{{Bib}}

Gianni: Pagina sostituita con '.'

2025-05-02T17:01:30Z

Pagina sostituita con '.'

← Versione meno recente		Versione delle 17:01, 2 mag 2025
Riga 1:		Riga 1:
	{{Tooltip\|<sup>[2]</sup>\|%%SEGMENTO_0%%\|<small>🧪 Cross-sectional study analyzing dental innovations from the past 30 years, identifying those that practicing dentists believe have most influenced patient care. 🧬 Thirty experts from the International Association for Dental Research selected the most relevant innovations, which were then surveyed among U.S. dentists who graduated before 1995 and have been clinically active for over 50% of their time. 🧩 The most cited innovations were adhesive materials (74.5%), dental implants (71.9%), direct bonding (71.2%), magnifying lenses (54.7%), universal infection control precautions (48.6%), and digital imaging (46.0%), with differences between generalists and specialists: oral surgeons and periodontists (OMSPER) also favored CBCT (74%) and regenerative techniques (68%). There is general consensus on the importance of implants, imaging, lenses, and universal precautions; generalists value adhesive materials and bonding, while specialists cite CBCT and tissue engineering. 📌 The study concludes that innovations with direct clinical impact are perceived as the most significant, suggesting that future research should also consider cost-effectiveness and patient perception.</small>}}		.

	~~dàlkhpqrhfp qoeir qi i èr q pqr èqu qu qr gqrh qru hpqr gpqr qrgq g~~
	~~qe r9urh uqr èquirh qurh <references~~
	~~{{Bib}}~~

Gianni il 16:56, 2 mag 2025

2025-05-02T16:56:56Z

← Versione meno recente		Versione delle 16:56, 2 mag 2025
Riga 1:		Riga 1:
	.		{{Tooltip\|<sup>[2]</sup>\|%%SEGMENTO_0%%\|<small>🧪 Cross-sectional study analyzing dental innovations from the past 30 years, identifying those that practicing dentists believe have most influenced patient care. 🧬 Thirty experts from the International Association for Dental Research selected the most relevant innovations, which were then surveyed among U.S. dentists who graduated before 1995 and have been clinically active for over 50% of their time. 🧩 The most cited innovations were adhesive materials (74.5%), dental implants (71.9%), direct bonding (71.2%), magnifying lenses (54.7%), universal infection control precautions (48.6%), and digital imaging (46.0%), with differences between generalists and specialists: oral surgeons and periodontists (OMSPER) also favored CBCT (74%) and regenerative techniques (68%). There is general consensus on the importance of implants, imaging, lenses, and universal precautions; generalists value adhesive materials and bonding, while specialists cite CBCT and tissue engineering. 📌 The study concludes that innovations with direct clinical impact are perceived as the most significant, suggesting that future research should also consider cost-effectiveness and patient perception.</small>}}

			dàlkhpqrhfp qoeir qi i èr q pqr èqu qu qr gqrh qru hpqr gpqr qrgq g
			qe r9urh uqr èquirh qurh <references
			{{Bib}}

Gianni: Creata pagina con "."

2025-05-02T16:50:56Z

Creata pagina con "."

Nuova pagina