Impact of socioeconomic and clinical factors on child oral health-related quality of life (COHRQoL)

Child oral health-related quality of life (COHRQoL) has been increasingly assessed; however, few studies appraised the influence of socioeconomic status on COHRQoL in developing countries. This study assessed the relationship of COHRQoL with socioeconomic backgrounds and clinical factors. This study followed a cross-sectional design, with a multistage random sample of 792 schoolchildren aged 12 years, representative of Santa Maria, a southern city in Brazil. Participants completed the Brazilian version of the Child Perceptions Questionnaire (CPQ(11-14)), their parents or guardians answered questions on socioeconomic status, and a dental examination provided information on the prevalence of caries, dental trauma and occlusion. The assessment of association used hierarchically adjusted Poisson regression models. Higher impacts on COHRQoL were observed for children presenting with untreated dental caries (RR 1.20; 95% CI 1.07-1.35) and maxillary overjet (RR 1.19; 95% CI 1.02-1.40). Socioeconomic factors also associated with COHRQoL; poorer scores were reported by children whose mothers have not completed primary education (RR 1.30; 95% CI 1.17-1.44) and those with lower household income (RR 1.13; 95% CI 1.02-1.26). Poor socioeconomic standings and poor dental status have a negative impact on COHRQoL; reducing health inequalities may demand dental programmes and policies targeting deprived population.

Pooled analysis of recent studies on magnetic fields and childhood leukaemia

BACKGROUND: Previous pooled analyses have reported an association between magnetic fields and childhood leukaemia. We present a pooled analysis based on primary data from studies on residential magnetic fields and childhood leukaemia published after 2000. METHODS: Seven studies with a total of 10 865 cases and 12 853 controls were included. The main analysis focused on 24-h magnetic field measurements or calculated fields in residences. RESULTS: In the combined results, risk increased with increase in exposure, but the estimates were imprecise. The odds ratios for exposure categories of 0.1-0.2 mu T, 0.2-0.3 mu T and >= 0.3 mu T, compared with <0.1 mu T, were 1.07 (95% Cl 0.81-1.41), 1.16 (0.69-1.93) and 1.44 (0.88-2.36), respectively. Without the most influential study from Brazil, the odds ratios increased somewhat. An increasing trend was also suggested by a nonparametric analysis conducted using a generalised additive model. CONCLUSIONS: Our results are in line with previous pooled analyses showing an association between magnetic fields and childhood leukaemia. Overall, the association is weaker in the most recently conducted studies, but these studies are small and lack methodological improvements needed to resolve the apparent association. We conclude that recent studies on magnetic fields and childhood leukaemia do not alter the previous assessment that magnetic fields are possibly carcinogenic. British Journal of Cancer (2010) 103, 1128-1135. doi: 10.1038/sj.bjc.6605838 www.bjcancer.com (c) 2010 Cancer Research UK

Effect of meloxicam and diclofenac sodium on peri-implant bone healing in rats

Background: This study evaluated the effects of diclofenac sodium and meloxicam on peri-implant bone healing. Methods: Thirty male rats were divided into three groups: the control group (CG) received no drug; the diclofenac sodium group (DSG) received 1.07 mg/kg twice a day for 5 days; and the meloxicam group (MG) received 0.2 mg/kg daily for 5 days. A screw-shaped titanium implant was placed in the tibia. Fluorochromes, oxytetracycline (OxT), calcein (CA), and alizarin (AL), were injected at 7, 14, and 21 days, respectively, after implantation, and the animals were sacrificed 28 days after implant placement. The percentages of OxT-, CA-, and AL-labeled bone as well as the percentages of bone-to-implant contact (BIC), cortical bone area (CBA), and trabecular bone area (TBA) within the implant threads were evaluated. Results: Bone healing was delayed in the DSG during the first 14 days after implant placement (OxT-labeled bone: DSG: 5.3% +/- 7.3% versus CG: 13.2% +/- 9.8%, P= 0.002, and versus MG: 14.4% +/- 13.1%, P = 0.05). The percentages of BIC (DSG: 49.6% +/- 21.9%; MG: 67.1% +/- 22.8%; and CG: 68.1% +/- 22.8%) and CBA (DSG: 63.7% +/- 21.2%; MG: 82.7% +/- 12.4%; CG: 84.9% +/- 10.6%) were lower in the DSG compared to the MG and CG (P<0.001). The percentage of TBA was significantly greater in the DSG compared to the MG and CG (DSG: 36.3% +/- 21.2% versus MG: 17.3% +/- 12.7% and versus CG: 15.1% +/- 10.6%; P<0.001). Conclusion: Diclofenac sodium seemed to delay peri-implant bone healing and to decrease BIC, whereas meloxicam had no negative effect on peri-implant bone healing.