Standardization and omics science : technical and social dimensions are inseparable and demand symmetrical study

Standardization is critical to scientists and regulators to ensure the quality and interoperability of research processes, as well as the safety and efficacy of the attendant research products. This is perhaps most evident in the case of “omics science,” which is enabled by a host of diverse high-throughput technologies such as genomics, proteomics, and metabolomics. But standards are of interest to (and shaped by) others far beyond the immediate realm of individual scientists, laboratories, scientific consortia, or governments that develop, apply, and regulate them. Indeed, scientific standards have consequences for the social, ethical, and legal environment in which innovative technologies are regulated, and thereby command the attention of policy makers and citizens. This article argues that standardization of omics science is both technical and social. A critical synthesis of the social science literature indicates that: (1) standardization requires a degree of flexibility to be practical at the level of scientific practice in disparate sites; (2) the manner in which standards are created, and by whom, will impact their perceived legitimacy and therefore their potential to be used; and (3) the process of standardization itself is important to establishing the legitimacy of an area of scientific research.

Flapless dental implant surgery : a retrospective study of 1,241 consecutive implants

Purpose: The purpose of this study was to identify retrospectively the predictors of implant survival when the flapless protocol was used in two private dental practices. Materials and Methods: The collected data were initially computer searched to identify the patients; later, a hand search of patient records was carried out to identify all flapless implants consecutively inserted over the last 10 years. The demographic information gathered on statistical predictors included age, sex, periodontal and peri-implantitis status, smoking, details of implants inserted, implant locations, placement time after extraction, use of simultaneous guided hard and soft tissue regeneration procedures, loading protocols, type of prosthesis, and treatment outcomes (implant survival and complications). Excluded were any implants that required flaps or simultaneous guided hard and soft tissue regeneration procedures, and implants narrower than 3.25 mm. Results: A total of 1,241 implants had been placed in 472 patients. Life table analysis indicated cumulative 5-year and 10-year implant survival rates of 97.9% and 96.5%, respectively. Most of the failed implants occurred in the posterior maxilla (54%) in type 4 bone (74.0%), and 55.0% of failed implants had been placed in smokers. Conclusion: Flapless dental implant surgery can yield an implant survival rate comparable to that reported in other studies using traditional flap techniques.