Biomechanical comparison of different surface modifications for dental implants

Purpose: A satisfactory clinical outcome in dental implant treatment relies on primary stability for immediate load bearing. While the geometric design of an implant contributes to mechanical stability, the nature of the implant surface itself is also critically important. Biomechanical and microcomputerized tomographic evaluation of implant osseointegration was performed to compare alternative structural, chemical and biochemical, and/or pharmaceutical surface treatments applied to an identical established implant design. Materials and Methods: Dental implants with the same geometry but with 6 different surface treatments were tested in vivo in a sheep model (pelvis). Peri-implant bone density and removal torque were compared at 2, 4, and 8 weeks after implantation. Implant surfaces tested were: sandblasted and acid-etched titanium (Ti), sandblasted and etched zirconia, Ti coated with calcium phosphate (CaP), Ti modified via anodic plasma-chemical treatment (APC), bisphosphonate-coated Ti (Ti + Bisphos), and Ti coated with collagen containing chondroitin sulfate (CS). Results: All dental implants were well integrated at the time of sacrifice. There were no significant differences observed in peri-implant bone density between implant groups. After 8 weeks of healing, removal torque values for Ti, Ti + CaP, Ti + Bisphos, and Ti + collagen + CS were significantly higher than those for zirconia and Ti + APC. Conclusions: Whereas the sandblasted/acid-etched Ti implant can still be considered the reference standard surface for dental implants, functional surface modifications such as bisphosphonate or collagen coating seem to enhance early peri-implant bone formation and should be studied further.

Benzamidine derivatives inhibit the virulence of Porphyromonas gingivalis

We have previously shown that benzamidine-type compounds can inhibit the activity of arginine-specific cysteine proteinases (gingipains HRgpA and RgpB); well-known virulence factors of Porphyromonas gingivalis. They also hinder in vitro growth of this important periodontopathogenic bacterium. Apparently growth arrest is not associated with their ability to inhibit these proteases, because pentamidine, which is a 20-fold less efficient inhibitor of gingipain than 2,6-bis-(4-amidinobenzyl)-cyclohexanone (ACH), blocked P. gingivalis growth far more effectively. To identify targets for benzamidine-derived compounds other than Arg-gingipains, and to explain their bacteriostatic effects, P. gingivalis ATCC 33277 and P. gingivalis M5-1-2 (clinical isolate) cell extracts were subjected to affinity chromatography using a benzamidine-Sepharose column to identify proteins interacting with benzamidine. In addition to HRgpA and RgpB the analysis revealed heat-shock protein GroEL as another ligand for benzamidine. To better understand the effect of benzamidine-derived compounds on P. gingivalis, bacteria were exposed to benzamidine, pentamidine, ACH and heat, and the expression of gingipains and GroEL was determined. Exposure to heat and benzamidine-derived compounds caused significant increases in GroEL, at both the mRNA and protein levels. Interestingly, despite the fact that gingipains were shown to be the main virulence factors in a fertilized egg model of infection, mortality rates were strongly reduced, not only by ACH, but also by pentamidine, a relatively weak gingipain inhibitor. This effect may depend not only on gingipain inhibition but also on interaction of benzamidine derivatives with GroEL. Therefore these compounds may find use in supportive periodontitis treatment.

Positional guidelines for orthodontic mini-implant placement in the anterior alveolar region: a systematic review

PURPOSE To investigate the adequacy of potential sites for insertion of orthodontic mini-implants (OMIs) in the anterior alveolar region (delimited by the first premolars) through a systematic review of studies that used computed tomography (CT) or cone beam CT (CBCT) to assess anatomical hard tissue parameters, such as bone thickness, available space, and bone density. MATERIALS AND METHODS MEDLINE, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews were searched to identify all relevant papers published between 1980 and September 2011. An extensive search strategy was performed that included the key words "computerized (computed) tomography" and "mini-implants." Information was extracted from the eligible articles for three anatomical areas: maxillary anterior buccal, maxillary anterior palatal, and mandibular anterior buccal. Quantitative data obtained for each anatomical variable under study were evaluated qualitatively with a scoring system. RESULTS Of the 790 articles identified by the search, 8 were eligible to be included in the study. The most favorable area for OMI insertion in the anterior maxilla (buccally and palatally) and mandible is between the canine and the first premolar. The best alternative area in the maxilla (buccally) and the mandible is between the lateral incisor and the canine, while in the maxillary palatal area it is between the central incisors or between the lateral incisor and the canine. CONCLUSIONS Although there is considerable heterogeneity among studies, there is a good level of agreement regarding the optimal site for OMI placement in the anterior region among investigations of anatomical hard tissue parameters based on CT or CBCT scans. In this context, the area between the lateral incisor and the first premolar is the most favorable. However, interroot distance seems to be a critical factor that should be evaluated carefully.

The role of adipokines in periodontal infection and healing.

Periodontitis is a chronic inflammatory disease of the periodontium, which is caused by pathogenic bacteria in combination with other risk factors. The bacteria induce an immunoinflammatory host response, which can lead to irreversible matrix degradation and bone resorption. Periodontitis can be successfully treated. To achieve regenerative periodontal healing, bioactive molecules, such as enamel matrix derivative (EMD), are applied during periodontal surgery. Recently, it has been shown that obesity is associated with periodontitis and compromised healing after periodontal therapy. The mechanisms underlying these associations are not well understood so far, but adipokines may be a pathomechanistic link. Adipokines are bioactive molecules that are secreted by the adipose tissue, and that regulate insulin sensitivity and energy expenditure, but also inflammatory and healing processes. It has also been demonstrated that visfatin and leptin increase the synthesis of proinflammatory and proteolytic molecules, whereas adiponectin downregulates the production of such mediators in periodontal cells. In addition, visfatin and leptin counteract the beneficial effects of EMD, whereas adiponectin enhances the actions of EMD on periodontal cells. Since visfatin and leptin levels are increased and adiponectin levels are reduced in obesity, these adipokines could be a pathomechanistic link whereby obesity and obesity-related diseases enhance the risk for periodontitis and compromised periodontal healing. Recent studies have also revealed that adipokines, such as visfatin, leptin and adiponectin, are produced in periodontal cells and regulated by periodontopathogenic bacteria. Therefore, adipokines may also represent a mechanism whereby periodontal infections can impact on systemic diseases.

Addition of docetaxel, zoledronic acid, or both to first-line long-term hormone therapy in prostate cancer (STAMPEDE): survival results from an adaptive, multiarm, multistage, platform randomised controlled trial

BACKGROUND Long-term hormone therapy has been the standard of care for advanced prostate cancer since the 1940s. STAMPEDE is a randomised controlled trial using a multiarm, multistage platform design. It recruits men with high-risk, locally advanced, metastatic or recurrent prostate cancer who are starting first-line long-term hormone therapy. We report primary survival results for three research comparisons testing the addition of zoledronic acid, docetaxel, or their combination to standard of care versus standard of care alone. METHODS Standard of care was hormone therapy for at least 2 years; radiotherapy was encouraged for men with N0M0 disease to November, 2011, then mandated; radiotherapy was optional for men with node-positive non-metastatic (N+M0) disease. Stratified randomisation (via minimisation) allocated men 2:1:1:1 to standard of care only (SOC-only; control), standard of care plus zoledronic acid (SOC + ZA), standard of care plus docetaxel (SOC + Doc), or standard of care with both zoledronic acid and docetaxel (SOC + ZA + Doc). Zoledronic acid (4 mg) was given for six 3-weekly cycles, then 4-weekly until 2 years, and docetaxel (75 mg/m(2)) for six 3-weekly cycles with prednisolone 10 mg daily. There was no blinding to treatment allocation. The primary outcome measure was overall survival. Pairwise comparisons of research versus control had 90% power at 2·5% one-sided α for hazard ratio (HR) 0·75, requiring roughly 400 control arm deaths. Statistical analyses were undertaken with standard log-rank-type methods for time-to-event data, with hazard ratios (HRs) and 95% CIs derived from adjusted Cox models. This trial is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT00268476) and ControlledTrials.com (ISRCTN78818544). FINDINGS 2962 men were randomly assigned to four groups between Oct 5, 2005, and March 31, 2013. Median age was 65 years (IQR 60-71). 1817 (61%) men had M+ disease, 448 (15%) had N+/X M0, and 697 (24%) had N0M0. 165 (6%) men were previously treated with local therapy, and median prostate-specific antigen was 65 ng/mL (IQR 23-184). Median follow-up was 43 months (IQR 30-60). There were 415 deaths in the control group (347 [84%] prostate cancer). Median overall survival was 71 months (IQR 32 to not reached) for SOC-only, not reached (32 to not reached) for SOC + ZA (HR 0·94, 95% CI 0·79-1·11; p=0·450), 81 months (41 to not reached) for SOC + Doc (0·78, 0·66-0·93; p=0·006), and 76 months (39 to not reached) for SOC + ZA + Doc (0·82, 0·69-0·97; p=0·022). There was no evidence of heterogeneity in treatment effect (for any of the treatments) across prespecified subsets. Grade 3-5 adverse events were reported for 399 (32%) patients receiving SOC, 197 (32%) receiving SOC + ZA, 288 (52%) receiving SOC + Doc, and 269 (52%) receiving SOC + ZA + Doc. INTERPRETATION Zoledronic acid showed no evidence of survival improvement and should not be part of standard of care for this population. Docetaxel chemotherapy, given at the time of long-term hormone therapy initiation, showed evidence of improved survival accompanied by an increase in adverse events. Docetaxel treatment should become part of standard of care for adequately fit men commencing long-term hormone therapy. FUNDING Cancer Research UK, Medical Research Council, Novartis, Sanofi-Aventis, Pfizer, Janssen, Astellas, NIHR Clinical Research Network, Swiss Group for Clinical Cancer Research.