RESUMO
Gut microbiota research has gained a tremendous amount of attention from the scientific community because of its contribution to gut homeostasis, human health, and various pathophysiological conditions. The early colonizer of the human gut, i.e., bifidobacteria, has emerged as an efficient probiotic in various diseased conditions, including cancer. This review explores the pros and cons of Bifidobacterium in various malignancies and various therapeutic strategies. We have illustrated the controversial role of bifidobacteria participating in various malignancies as well as described the current knowledge regarding its use in anticancer therapies. Ultimately, this article also addresses the need for further extensive research in elucidating the mechanism of how bifidobacteria is involved and is indirectly affecting the tumor microenvironment. Exhaustive and large-scale research is also required to solve the controversial questions regarding the involvement of bifidobacteria in cancer research.
RESUMO
BACKGROUND: This study aimed to compare survival of single tooth implants (SI) to teeth receiving initial endodontic treatment (IET), non-surgical (NET), and surgical endodontic retreatments (SET). The secondary aim was to determine success rate and identify factors associated with the survival and success of implant and endodontic treatments. METHODS: A retrospective cohort study using electronic health records (January 1st, 1995 to April 30th, 2017) was conducted. Every case that qualified for the study in SI (n = 321), NET (n = 211), and SET (n = 79) was included and cases in IET (n = 642) were selected at random and with a 2 to 1 case ratio to SI for data extraction efficiency. Statistical analyses were conducted to compare survival rates and estimate success rates between the four groups adjusting for confounders. RESULTS: The 3 year survival rates for SI, IET, NET, and SET were 99.0%, 92.1%, 90.5%, and 89.5% while the 5 year survival rates for SI, IET, NET, and SET were 99.0%, 87.6%, 84.4%, and 81.1%, respectively. Generally, the SI group had the highest survival rate and the SET group had the lowest survival rate. Short implants (≤8 mm) were significantly associated with implant failure (P < 0.01). Teeth with composite restoration had lower survival rates in IET and NET than other restorations (P < 0.01 and < 0.01). CONCLUSION: Within the limitations of this study, single tooth implants and the endodontic treatments yielded predictable survival and success in the short term but the survival and success rates in endodontic treatments dropped more rapidly than single tooth implants during the longer follow-up period.