Detection of Epstein-Barr virus encoded small RNA genes in oral squamous cell carcinoma and non-cancerous oral cavity samples.

BACKGROUND: Epstein-Barr Virus (EBV) is a human oncogenic virus that can lead to cancer in lymphoid and epithelial cells and is one of the hypothesized causes of oral cavity lesions including oral squamous cell carcinoma (OSCC), but the etiological association remains undetermined. The present investigation aimed to explore the EBV presence, viral load, and EBV-encoded small RNA (EBER) sequence variation in tissue samples of patients with OSCC and other oral cavity lesions including oral lichen planus (OLP), and oral irritation fibroma (OIF). METHODS: In total, 88 oral cavity samples (23 with OSCC, 29 with OLP, and 36 with OIF diagnosis) were examined by Real-Time PCR technique and some of them were sequenced. RESULTS: Viral EBER sequence was detected in 6 out of the 23 OSCC (31.4%), 6 out of the 29 OLP (20.7%), and 3 out of the 36 OIF cases (8.3%). The mean EBV copy number was higher in OSCC samples (1.2 × 10-2 ± 1.3 × 10-2 copies/cell) compared to OLP (2.2 × 10-3 ± 2.6 × 10-3 copies/cell) and OIF (2.4 × 10-4 ± 2.0 × 10-4 copies/cell) samples, although this difference was not statistically significant (P = 0.318). The EBER gene was amplified and sequenced in 5 OSCC, 3 OLP, and 2 OIF samples with high EBV viral load. One OSCC, two OLP, and two OIF isolates showed different nucleotide variations compared with EBV-WT and AG876 prototype sequences: C6834T, C6870T, C6981T, C7085T, C7085G, and C7094T. CONCLUSION: In our study the presence of more than one genome copies per tumor cell indicates the possible role of EBV infection in oral cancers. However, more studies should be conducted to clarify the role of EBV in OSCC carcinogenesis.

Comparison of Bone Formation After Sinus Membrane Lifting Without Graft or Using Bone Substitute "Histologic and Radiographic Evaluation".

PURPOSE: Sinus floor elevation without using autogenous bone graft or bone substitute will eliminate donor site morbidity and reduce the cost and the risk of infection. We evaluated the bone gain after sinus membrane elevation without graft or using bone substitute in the same maxilla. Dental implants were inserted simultaneously as a 1-stage procedure. PATIENTS AND METHODS: In a split-mouth design, we conducted a randomized double-blinded clinical trial performing sinus lifts and simultaneous implant insertion in 10 healthy patients (n = 20). On the 1 site, we performed graft-less sinus lift (group 1) and on the other site Cerabone was used as bone substitute (group 2), respectively. The quantity and quality of bone gained in each sinus were evaluated and compared radiologically and histomorphometrically. RESULTS: After 6 months, the average gain of bone height was 6.21 and 9.58 mm in group 1 and 2, respectively, as measured radiologically (P < .001, P < .001). Histomorphometric examination showed significantly higher thickness of trabeculae and bone formation in group 1 (P = .003 and P = .002). However, the neovascularization was higher, but not significantly (P = .288). CONCLUSIONS: Radiological bone gain was similar in both groups. However, histomorphometric examination showed superior bone formation in graft-less group as compared to the Cerabone group. The blood clot seems to be an adequate filler and excellent medium for bone formation. More studies in split-mouth design are needed to compare different bone substitutes.

A histologic, histomorphometric, and radiographic comparison between two complexes of CenoBoen/CenoMembrane and Bio-Oss/Bio-Gide in lateral ridge augmentation: A clinical trial.

BACKGROUND: Several grafting materials have been used for alveolar ridge augmentation. The literature lacks researches to compare CenoBone to other grafting materials. The aim of this study was to compare CenoBone/CenoMembrane complex to Bio-Oss/Bio-Gide complex in lateral alveolar bone augmentation in terms of radiographic, histologic, and histomorphometric parameters. MATERIALS AND METHODS: In this randomized controlled trial, ten patients who needed lateral ridge augmentation were selected and augmentations were done using either of CenoBone/CenoMembrane or Bio-Oss/Bio-Gide complexes. In the re-entry surgery in 6 months following augmentation, core biopsies were taken and clinical, radiographic, histologic, and histomorphometric evaluations were performed. RESULTS: No statistically significant difference was seen between groups except for the number of blood vessels and percentage of residual graft materials. CONCLUSION: CenoBone seems to present a comparable lateral ridge augmentation to Bio-Oss in.