Periodontal systemic associations: review of the evidence

Aim: To critically appraise recent research into associations between periodontal disease and systemic diseases and conditions specifically respiratory disease, chronic kidney disease, rheumatoid arthritis, cognitive impairment, obesity, metabolic syndrome and cancer.

Methods: A MEDLINE literature search of papers published between 2002 and April 2012 was conducted. Studies that included periodontitis as an exposure were identified. Cross-sectional epidemiological investigations on large samples, prospective studies and systematic reviews formed the basis of the narrative review. A threshold set for the identification of periodontitis was used to identify those studies that contributed to the conclusions of the review.

Results: Many of the investigations were cross-sectional secondary analyses of existing data sets in particular the NHANES studies. There were a small number of systematic reviews and prospective studies. There was substantial variability in the definitions of exposure to periodontitis. A small number of studies met the threshold set for periodontitis and supported associations; however, in some of the chronic diseases there were no such studies. There was strong evidence from randomized controlled trials that interventions, which improve oral hygiene have positive effects on the prevention of nosocomial pneumonias.

Conclusions: There was substantial heterogeneity in the definitions used to identify periodontitis and very few studies met a stringent threshold for periodontitis. Published evidence supports modest associations between periodontitis and some, although not all, of the diseases and conditions reviewed. There is a need to reach a consensus on what constitutes periodontitis for future studies of putative associations with systemic diseases.

The lifetime direct cost of periodontal treatment:A case study from a norwegian specialist practice

Background: Successful periodontal treatment requires a commitment to regular lifelong maintenance and may be perceived by patients to be costly. This study calculates the total lifetime cost of periodontal treatment in the setting of a specialist periodontal practice and investigates the cost implications of choosing not to proceed with such treatment. Methods: Data from patients treated in a specialist practice in Norway were used to calculate the total lifetime cost of periodontal treatment that included baseline periodontal treatment, regular maintenance, retreatment, and replacing teeth lost during maintenance. Incremental costs for alternative strategies based on opting to forego periodontal treatment or maintenance and to replace any teeth lost with either bridgework or implants were calculated. Results: Patients who completed baseline periodontal treatment but did not have any additional maintenance or retreatment could replace only three teeth with bridgework or two teeth with implants before the cost of replacing additional teeth would exceed the cost of lifetime periodontal treatment. Patients who did not have any periodontal treatment could replace ≤4 teeth with bridgework or implants before a replacement strategy became more expensive. Conclusions: Within the limits of the assumptions made, periodontal treatment in a Norwegian specialist periodontal practice is cost-effective when compared to an approach that relies on opting to replace teeth lost as a result of progressive periodontitis with fixed restorations. In particular, patients who have initial comprehensive periodontal treatment but do not subsequently comply with maintenance could, on average, replace ≤3 teeth with bridgework or two teeth with implants before this approach would exceed the direct cost of lifetime periodontal treatment in the setting of the specialist practice studied. © 2012 American Academy of Periodontology.

Incorporating Severity and Risk as Factors to the Fardal Cost-Effectiveness Model to Create a Cost-Benefit Model for Periodontal Treatment

Background: A previously described economic model was based on average values for patients diagnosed with chronic periodontitis (CP). However, tooth loss varies among treated patients and factors for tooth loss include CP severity and risk. The model was refined to incorporate CP severity and risk to determine the cost of treating a specific level of CP severity and risk that is associated with the benefit of tooth preservation.

Methods: A population that received and another that did not receive periodontal treatment were used to determine treatment costs and tooth loss. The number of teeth preserved was the difference of the number of teeth lost between the two populations. The cost of periodontal treatment was divided by the number of teeth preserved for combinations of CP severity and risk.

Results: The cost of periodontal treatment divided by the number of teeth preserved ranged from (US) $ 1,405 to $ 4,895 for high or moderate risk combined with any severity of CP and was more than $ 8,639 for low risk combined with mild CP. The cost of a three-unit bridge was $ 3,416, and the cost of a single-tooth replacement was $ 4,787.

Conclusion: Periodontal treatment could be justified on the sole basis of tooth preservation when CP risk is moderate or high regardless of disease severity.

Current status and future prospects of laser-driven ion sources

Laser-driven ion acceleration is attracting an impressive and steadily increasing research effort. The talk will review the state of the art in this field, focusing on emerging mechanisms which hold high promise for further progress. © 2014 OSA.

Status of GPCR modeling and docking as reflected by community-wide GPCR Dock 2010 assessment

The community-wide GPCR Dock assessment is conducted to evaluate the status of molecular modeling and ligand docking for human G protein-coupled receptors. The present round of the assessment was based on the recent structures of dopamine D3 and CXCR4 chemokine receptors bound to small molecule antagonists and CXCR4 with a synthetic cyclopeptide. Thirty-five groups submitted their receptor-ligand complex structure predictions prior to the release of the crystallographic coordinates. With closely related homology modeling templates, as for dopamine D3 receptor, and with incorporation of biochemical and QSAR data, modern computational techniques predicted complex details with accuracy approaching experimental. In contrast, CXCR4 complexes that had less-characterized interactions and only distant homology to the known GPCR structures still remained very challenging. The assessment results provide guidance for modeling and crystallographic communities in method development and target selection for further expansion of the structural coverage of the GPCR universe.

Cancer survivors with self-reported late effects: their health status, care needs and service utilisation

OBJECTIVE: Cancer survivors (CSs) are at risk of developing late effects (LEs) associated with the disease and its treatment. This paper compares the health status, care needs and use of health services by CSs with LEs and CSs without LEs.

METHODS: Cancer survivors (n = 613) were identified via the Northern Ireland Cancer Registry and invited to participate in a postal survey that was administered by their general practitioner. The survey assessed self-reported LEs, health status, health service use and unmet care needs. A total of 289 (47%) CSs responded to the survey, and 93% of respondents completed a LEs scale.

RESULTS: Forty-one per cent (111/269) of CSs reported LEs. Survivors without LEs and survivors with LEs were comparable in terms of age and gender. The LEs group reported a significantly greater number of co-morbidities, lower physical health and mental health scores, greater overall health service use and more unmet needs. Unadjusted logistic regression analysis found that cancer site, time since diagnosis and treatment were significantly associated with reporting of LEs. CSs who received combination therapies compared with CSs who received single treatments were over two and a half times more likely to report LEs (OR = 2.63, 95% CI = 1.32-5.25) after controlling for all other variables.

CONCLUSIONS: The CS population with LEs comprises a particularly vulnerable group of survivors who have multiple health care problems and needs and who require tailored care plans that take account of LEs and their impact on health-related quality of life.