Enamel loss and adhesive remnants following bracket removal and various clean-up procedures in vitro

This study evaluated the enamel loss and composite remnants after debonding and clean-up. The tested null hypothesis is that there are no differences between different polishing systems regarding removing composite remnants without damaging the tooth surface. Brackets were bonded to 75 extracted human molars and removed after a storage period of 100 hours. The adhesive remnant index (ARI) was evaluated. The clean-up was carried out with five different procedures: 1. carbide bur; 2. carbide bur and Brownie and Greenie silicone polishers; 3. carbide bur and Astropol polishers; 4. carbide bur and Renew polishers; and 5. carbide bur, Brownie, Greenie and PoGo polishers. Silicone impressions were made at baseline (T0) and after debonding (T1) and polishing (T2) to produce plaster replicas. The replicas were analysed with a three-dimensional laser scanner and measured with analytical software. Statistical analysis was performed with the Kruskal-Wallis test and pairwise Wilcoxon tests with Bonferroni-Holm adjustment (α = 0.05). Enamel breakouts after debonding were detectable in 27 per cent of all cases, with a mean volume loss of 0.02 mm(3) (±0.03 mm(3)) and depth of 44.9 μm (±48.3 μm). The overall ARI scores was 3 with a few scores of 1 and 2. The composite remnants after debonding had a mean volume of 2.48 mm(3) (±0.92 mm(3)). Mean volume loss due to polishing was 0.05 mm(3) (±0.26 mm(3)) and the composite remnants had a mean volume of 0.22 mm(3) (±0.32 mm(3)). There were no statistically significant differences in volumetric changes after polishing (P = 0.054) between the different clean-up methods. However, sufficient clean-up without enamel loss was difficult to achieve.

Prion removal capacity of plasma protein manufacturing processes

BACKGROUND The variant Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease incidence peaked a decade ago and has since declined. Based on epidemiologic evidence, the causative agent, pathogenic prion, has not constituted a tangible contamination threat to large-scale manufacturing of human plasma-derived proteins. Nonetheless, manufacturers have studied the prion removal capabilities of various manufacturing steps to better understand product safety. Collectively analyzing the results could reveal experimental reproducibility and detect trends and mechanisms driving prion removal. STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS Plasma Protein Therapeutics Association member companies collected more than 200 prion removal studies on plasma protein manufacturing steps, including precipitation, adsorption, chromatography, and filtration, as well as combined steps. The studies used a range of model spiking agents and bench-scale process replicas. The results were grouped based on key manufacturing variables to identify factors impacting removal. The log reduction values of a group are presented for comparison. RESULTS Overall prion removal capacities evaluated by independent groups were in good agreement. The removal capacity evaluated using biochemical assays was consistent with prion infectivity removal measured by animal bioassays. Similar reduction values were observed for a given step using various spiking agents, except highly purified prion protein in some circumstances. Comparison between combined and single-step studies revealed complementary or overlapping removal mechanisms. Steps with high removal capacities represent the conditions where the physiochemical differences between prions and therapeutic proteins are most significant. CONCLUSION The results support the intrinsic ability of certain plasma protein manufacturing steps to remove prions in case of an unlikely contamination, providing a safeguard to products.

PVR recurrence and the timing of silicon oil removal

BACKGROUND: Following vitrectomy for PVR-associated retinal detachment, placement of an encircling band, filling with silicone oil (SO) and successful retinal reattachment, a recurrence of PVR can develop. Retinal redetachment after SO removal is usually due to secondary or residual PVR. We wanted to ascertain whether the anatomical and functional outcomes of surgery in patients with a reattached retina and recurrent PVR can be improved by delaying the removal of SO. PATIENTS AND METHODS: 112 consecutive patients with PVR-associated retinal detachment who had undergone vitrectomy with SO filling, were monitored for at least 6 months after SO removal. Prior to SO removal, the retina posterior to the encircling band had to be completely reattached. Patients who developed PVR after SO filling were divided into two groups according to the duration of SO retention: 12 - 18 months (group 2: n = 48); > 18 months (group 3: n = 21). Individuals without PVR recurrence after SO filling and in whom the SO was consequently removed within 4 - 12 months served as control (group 1: n = 43). Anatomical success, intraocular pressure (IOP) and best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA) served as the primary clinical outcome parameters. RESULTS: Six months after SO removal, the anatomical success rates (86.3 %, 88.8 % and 84.6 %, in groups 1, 2 and 3, respectively; log rank = 0.794) and the BCVAs (p = 0.861) were comparable in the three groups. Mean IOP (p = 0.766), and the frequency of complications such as PVR recurrence (p = 0.936), bullous keratopathy (p = 0.981) and macular pucker (p = 0.943) were likewise similar. Patients in whom SO was retained for more than 18 months had the highest IOPs and required the heaviest dosage with anti-glaucoma drugs. CONCLUSIONS: In patients who develop a recurrence of PVR after vitrectomy and SO filling the surgeon can observe and treat retinal changes for up to 18 months without impairing the anatomical and functional outcomes. The retention of SO for more than 18 months does not improve the anatomical outcome. However, it can impair the functional outcome by precipitating the development of a persisting secondary glaucoma.

Clinical field trial examining an implant with a sand-blasted, acid-etched surface

BACKGROUND: Conventionally, endosseous dental implants have required 3 to 6 months of uninterrupted healing based on observations for dental implants that were characterized by a relatively smooth machined surface. Many studies have since demonstrated that implants with a roughened surface resulted in greater bone apposition, earlier bone contact, and a stronger bond between the implant and the bone, suggesting that implants with roughened surfaces could be loaded earlier than 3 to 6 months. Formal clinical studies confirmed that implants with rough surfaces can have abutments placed and be loaded occlusally as early as 6 weeks postplacement. The purpose of this prospective, human clinical investigation was to evaluate a large number of implants with a specific rough surface (sand-blasted acid-etched [SLA]) placed in everyday practice under routine private-practice conditions. METHODS: A prospective, multicenter, human clinical observational study was initiated with the goal of recruiting a minimum of 500 patients and 800 implants. The implants were to be placed and restored in predominantly private-practice settings around the world. Ninety-two practitioners in 16 countries agreed to participate, and 86 followed the study design. Patients had to be in good health, have sufficient bone to encase the implant, and agree to return for recall appointments. Exclusion criteria included heavy smoking (>10 cigarettes a day) and bone augmentation procedures at the implant site. All implants were two-piece (an abutment was to be placed after 6 weeks of healing) and were characterized by the presence of a transmucosal polished collar. Each implant had an SLA surface. All implants were positioned using a non-submerged (single-stage) surgical technique. Survival and success rates were calculated by life-table analyses. RESULTS: A total of 706 patients were enrolled and 1,406 implants were placed. In the final analyses, 590 patients with 990 implants (70.4% of those enrolled) met all inclusion criteria, including placement of an abutment and provisional restoration within 63 days of surgical placement. The majority of implants were 10 and 12 mm long (78.7%) and were placed in type II and III bone (87%). Seventy-three percent of the implants were placed in the mandible, and 27% were placed in the maxilla. The cumulative survival rate was 99.56% at 3 years and 99.26% at 5 years. The overall success rate was 99.12% at 3 years and 97.38% after 5 years. CONCLUSIONS: Under private-practice conditions, implants with an SLA surface could be placed and restored predictably within 6 to 8 weeks. Data from this prospective, multicenter, human observational study reinforced the results of more formal clinical studies and demonstrated that implants with the SLA surface can be restored in patients in approximately half of the time of conventional healing periods.

[Complications during and after surgical removal of mandibular third molars. Impact of patient related and anatomical factors]

The estimation of possible intra- and postoperative complications for surgical removal of third molars in the mandible poses a frequent dilemma in oral surgery. In the present study, the influence of the patient's age and gender, a reduced mouth opening, and the anatomical position of the tooth in the mandible on intra- and postoperative complications were evaluated. In a total of 120 surgically removed third molars, 9.2% intraoperative complications occurred, mainly bleeding. Factors influencing the risk for intraoperative complications were a male patient, a reduced mouth opening, and distally angulated teeth. Postoperative complications were encountered in 6.7%, mainly dry sockets. For this group, a female gender, a higher age, and distally angulated teeth were identified as risk parameters. As most of the patient- and anatomy-related factors are set parameters when evaluating possible risk factors for third molar surgery, only the timepoint of surgery can be influenced by the surgeon. Regarding the increase in intra- and postoperative complications for third molar removal in higher age groups, the prophylactic third molar surgery between the age of 18 and 25 seems justified.