Two physically, functionally, and developmentally distinct peritoneal macrophage subsets

The peritoneal cavity (PerC) is a unique compartment within which a variety of immune cells reside, and from which macrophages (Mempty set) are commonly drawn for functional studies. Here we define two Mempty set subsets that coexist in PerC in adult mice. One, provisionally called the large peritoneal Mempty set (LPM), contains approximately 90% of the PerC Mempty set in unstimulated animals but disappears rapidly from PerC following lipopolysaccharide (LPS) or thioglycolate stimulation. These cells express high levels of the canonical Mempty set surface markers, CD11b and F4/80. The second subset, referred to as small peritoneal Mempty set (SPM), expresses substantially lower levels of CD11b and F4/80 but expresses high levels of MHC-II, which is not expressed on LPM. SPM, which predominates in PerC after LPS or thioglycolate stimulation, does not derive from LPM. Instead, it derives from blood monocytes that rapidly enter the PerC after stimulation and differentiate to mature SPM within 2 to 4 d. Both subsets show clear phagocytic activity and both produce nitric oxide (NO) in response to LPS stimulation in vivo. However, their responses to LPS show key differences: in vitro, LPS stimulates LPM, but not SPM, to produce NO; in vivo, LPS stimulates both subsets to produce NO, albeit with different response patterns. These findings extend current models of Mempty set heterogeneity and shed new light on PerC Mempty set diversity, development, and function. Thus, they introduce a new context for interpreting (and reinterpreting) data from ex vivo studies with PerC Mempty set.

Caries-preventive Efficacy and Retention of a Resin-modified Glass lonomer Cement and a Resin-based Fissure Sealant: A 3-year Split-mouth Randomised Clinical Trial

Purpose: This prospective clinical trial compared the retention rate and caries-preventive efficacy of two types of sealant modalities over a 3-year period. Materials and Methods: Using a split-mouth randomised design, 1280 sealants were randomly applied on sound permanent second molars of 320 young patients aged between 12 and 16 years. Half of the teeth (n = 640) were sealed with a resin-modified glass ionomer cement (RMGIC) (Vitremer (TM), 3M ESPE) and the other half (n = 640) with a conventional light-cure, resin-based fissure sealant (LCRB) (Fluoroshield (R), Dentsply Caulk). Teeth were evaluated at baseline, 6-, 12-, 18-, 24-, 30- and 36-month intervals with regard to retention and new caries development. Results: On the sealed occlusal surfaces after 3 years, 5.10% of RMGIC and 91.08% of LCRB sealants were totally intact and 6.37% of RMGIC and 7.65% of LCRB sealants were partially intact. New caries lesions were found in 20.06% of RMGIC sealed occlusal surfaces, compared to 8.91% for LCRB sealants. Conclusions: The findings of the present clinical study suggest that RMGIC should be used only as a transitional sealant that can be applied to newly erupting teeth throughout the eruptive process, whereas LCRB sealants are used to successfully prevent occlusal caries lesions once an effective rubber dam can be achieved. It can be concluded that there are differences between the RMGIC and LCRB sealants over a 3-year period in terms of the retention rate and caries-preventive efficacy. RMGIC can serve as a simple and economic sealing solution, however provisional. Due to its poor retention rate, periodic recalls are necessary, even after 6 months, to eventually replace the lost sealant.