Proteomic profile of saliva collected directly from ducts: a systematic review.

OBJECTIVE: To present a systematic review that provides updated information about proteins found in salivary fluid extracted strictly from ducts. METHODS: The systematic review probing strategy was based on electronic databases word search (PubMed, EMBASE, LILACS, Web of Science, and Scopus). Risk of bias was assessed based on Joanna Briggs Institute Critical Appraisal Checklist for Studies Reporting Prevalence Data. RESULTS: After 2 rounds of scrutiny, 12 articles were included, totaling 231 individuals (125 were healthy, 41 were elder individuals with radicular caries, 56 had primary Sjögren's syndrome, and 9 were patients who had received radiotherapy for head and neck cancer). The selected studies had no similarities among proteins found, demonstrating the need of standard reference in experimental methodology to obtain a thorough coverage of proteins. CONCLUSION: Further studies are required to better determine the relative amount of proteins described in this study. It is essential to increase the number of samples, to perform similar collection techniques, to include other analyses methods such as mass spectrometry, and to perform the validation of some proteins using immunoassay techniques such as Elisa and Western blot. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Proteomic profile of saliva collected from ducts is essential to better understand the disease process, enabling the identification of biomarkers for specific clinical situations.

Dental trauma prevention with mouthguard in a nose fracturing blow to the face: Case report.

Orofacial injuries are common in sports activities and may vary in complexity and the tissues involved. Most sports-related trauma occurs when a player hits another player, an object or the ground. This report presents a case of an injury caused by a punchlike blow to the face during a handball college team practice session. The patient suffered a traumatic blow to the left side of the nose and mouth and promptly attended a dentist. After a clinical examination and a CBCT scan, the following injuries were diagnosed: upper lip laceration, upper left lateral incisor subluxation and anterior nasal spine fracture. More severe teeth injuries were likely prevented because the patient was wearing a mouthguard.

Diagnostic accuracy of imaging examinations for peri-implant bone defects around titanium and zirconium dioxide implants: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

PURPOSE: This systematic review and meta-analysis assessed the diagnostic accuracy of imaging examinations for the detection of peri-implant bone defects and compared the diagnostic accuracy between titanium (Ti) and zirconium dioxide (ZrO2) implants. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Six online databases were searched, and studies were selected based on eligibility criteria. The studies included in the systematic review underwent bias and applicability assessment using the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies 2 (QUADAS-2) tool and a random-effect meta-analysis. Summary receiver operating characteristic (sROC) curves were constructed to compare the effect of methodological differences in relation to the variables of each group. RESULTS: The search strategy yielded 719 articles. Titles and abstracts were read and 61 studies were selected for full-text reading. Among them, 24 studies were included in this systematic review. Most included studies had a low risk of bias (QUADAS-2). Cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) presented sufficient data for quantitative analysis in ZrO2 and Ti implants. The meta-analysis revealed high levels of inconsistency in the latter group. Regarding sROC curves, the area under the curve (AUC) was larger for the overall Ti group (AUC=0.79) than for the overall ZrO2 group (AUC=0.69), but without a statistically significant difference between them. In Ti implants, the AUCs for dehiscence defects (0.73) and fenestration defects (0.87) showed a statistically significant difference. CONCLUSION: The diagnostic accuracy of CBCT imaging in the assessment of peri-implant bone defects was similar between Ti and ZrO2 implants, and fenestration was more accurately diagnosed than dehiscence in Ti implants.

Clinical outcome of dental procedures among renal transplant recipients.

AIMS: To compare outcomes of dental procedures among a group of renal transplant recipients who had received antibiotic prophylaxis (AP) before the procedure and another group that had not received AP. METHODS AND RESULTS: The records of all renal transplant patients treated at the Special Care Dentistry Center (SCDC) were assessed. Dental procedures documented in the records were classified as invasive or noninvasive. All dental procedures performed were compiled, and the prescription or nonprescription of prophylactic antibiotics, and the incidence and description of postoperative complications after invasive procedures were recorded. Eighty-seven records were evaluated. Out of 190 invasive procedures all were simple dental extractions, 107 (56.3%) were preceded by AP; out of 242 noninvasive procedures, 14 (5.7%) were preceded by AP. A lack of uniformity on the type and dose of the antibiotic prescribed was observed. Four postoperative complications after invasive procedures (dental extraction) were noted and in 2 cases the procedures were preceded by AP. CONCLUSION: This retrospective study showed no difference in postextraction outcomes between renal transplant recipients who received and who did not receive AP before dental extractions.

Radiographic diagnosis of root fractures: a systematic review, meta-analyses and sources of heterogeneity.

OBJECTIVES: Many studies to evaluate the accuracy of root fracture diagnosis have been conducted. However, there is a scarcity of studies to assess the quality and the sources of heterogeneity in the literature. For this reason, the aim of this study was to conduct systematic reviews and meta-analyses to summarize the available evidence on detection of root fractures by cone beam CT (CBCT) and periapical radiograph (PR) images and the interference of artefact by investigating possible sources of heterogeneity. METHODS: Studies reporting root fracture detection, from January 2010 to February 2016, were selected. All selected studies were subjected to selection criteria and then, comparative and qualitative analyses by using the quality assessment of diagnostic accuracy studies (QUADAS-2) tool were performed. Pooled sensitivity, specificity and diagnostic odds ratios were calculated. Also, receiver operator characteristics (ROC) curves were built to summarize the results. SROC curve analyses were performed to investigate the heterogeneity among studies. RESULTS: Initially, 799 articles were selected. After screening titles and abstracts, 743 articles were excluded. After reading the remaining 56 full-texts, 47 relevant articles were included in this study. Diagnostic odds ratio values revealed a wide range of results across the studies and determined a higher heterogeneity for PR compared with CBCT. The analyses of the SROC curves compared CBCT imaging versus PR in the diagnosis of root fracture, favouring CBCT modality. CONCLUSIONS: CBCT was the imaging exam that rendered a higher diagnostic accuracy for root fractures.

Diagnosis of alveolar and root fractures in macerated canine maxillae: a comparison between two different CBCT protocols.

OBJECTIVES: To compare two small-field-of-view (FOV) CBCT protocols with different voxel sizes and number of frames for the diagnosis of root and alveolar fractures in macerated canine maxillae. METHODS: 80 incisor teeth from the canine species were inserted in 80 anterior alveolar sockets of 20 canine maxillae. An operator randomly divided each maxilla site (80 sites in total) into 4 equal groups of 20 sites: 1 (sound tooth and non-fractured alveolar socket); 2 (sound tooth and fractured alveolar socket); 3 (fractured root and non-fractured alveolar socket); and 4 (fractured root and fractured alveolar socket). The CBCT images were obtained using two different protocols: normal (N) (voxel 0.20 mm, 400 frames and radiation exposure 5.6 mGy) and high definition (HD) (voxel 0.15 mm, 500 frames and radiation exposure 7.0 mGy). RESULTS: Sensitivity numbers for alveolar fractures were lower than specificity, resulting in comparable areas under the receiver operating characteristic curves (AUC) for both protocols. Sensitivity, specificity and AUC for N and HD protocols were very similar for root fractures. When comparing AUC for both N and HD protocols by submitting them to Student's t-test, the comparison among the curves produced statistically non-significant results for alveolar fractures and root fractures likewise. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings demonstrated that the elected protocol for the diagnosis of root and alveolar fractures was N. This protocol allowed similar diagnosis results than HD protocol; however, with a lower amount of radiation exposure for the patient (5.6 mGy for N vs 7.0 mGy for HD).

Detection of furcation involvement using periapical radiography and 2 cone-beam computed tomography imaging protocols with and without a metallic post: An animal study.

PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to assess the accuracy, sensitivity, and specificity of the diagnosis of incipient furcation involvement with periapical radiography (PR) and 2 cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) imaging protocols, and to test metal artifact interference. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Mandibular second molars in 10 macerated pig mandibles were divided into those that showed no furcation involvement and those with lesions in the furcation area. Exams using PR and 2 different CBCT imaging protocols were performed with and without a metallic post. Each image was analyzed twice by 2 observers who rated the absence or presence of furcation involvement according to a 5-point scale. Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves were used to evaluate the accuracy, sensitivity, and specificity of the observations. RESULTS: The accuracy of the CBCT imaging protocols ranged from 67.5% to 82.5% in the images obtained with a metallic post and from 72.5% to 80% in those without a metallic post. The accuracy of PR ranged from 37.5% to 55% in the images with a metallic post and from 42.5% to 62.5% in those without a metallic post. The area under the ROC curve values for the CBCT imaging protocols ranged from 0.813 to 0.802, and for PR ranged from 0.503 to 0.448. CONCLUSION: Both CBCT imaging protocols showed higher accuracy, sensitivity, and specificity than PR in the detection of incipient furcation involvement. Based on these results, CBCT may be considered a reliable tool for detecting incipient furcation involvement following a clinical periodontal exam, even in the presence of a metallic post.

Diagnosis of alveolar and root fractures: an in vitro study comparing CBCT imaging with periapical radiographs.

OBJECTIVE: To compare periapical radiograph (PR) and cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) in the diagnosis of alveolar and root fractures. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Sixty incisor teeth (20 higid and 40 with root fracture) from dogs were inserted in 60 anterior alveolar sockets (40 higid and 20 with alveolar fracture) of 15 macerated canine maxillae. Each fractured socket had a root fractured tooth inserted in it. Afterwards, each maxilla was submitted to PR in two different vertical angulation incidences, and to CBCT imaging with a small field of view (FOV) and high-definition protocol. Images were randomized and posteriorly analyzed by two oral and maxillofacial radiologists two times, with a two-week interval between observations. RESULTS: Sensitivity and specificity values were good for root fractures for PR and CBCT. For alveolar fractures, sensitivity ranged from 0.10 to 0.90 for PR and from 0.50 to 0.65 for CBCT. Specificity for alveolar fractures showed lower results than for root fractures for PR and CBCT. Areas under the ROC curve showed good results for both PR and CBCT for root fractures. However, results were fair for both PR and CBCT for alveolar fractures. When submitted to repeated measures ANOVA tests, there was a statistically significant difference between PR and CBCT for root fractures. Root fracture intraobserver agreement ranged from 0.90 to 0.93, and alveolar fracture intraobserver agreement ranged from 0.30 to 0.57. Interobserver agreement results were substantial for root fractures and poor/fair for alveolar fractures (0.11 for PR and 0.30 for CBCT). CONCLUSION: Periapical radiograph with two different vertical angulations may be considered an accurate method to detect root fractures. However, PR showed poorer results than CBCT for the diagnosis of alveolar fractures. When no fractures are diagnosed in PR and the patient describes pain symptoms, the subsequent exam of choice is CBCT.

Diagnosis of alveolar and root fractures: an in vitro study comparing CBCT imaging with periapical radiographs

Abstract Objective To compare periapical radiograph (PR) and cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) in the diagnosis of alveolar and root fractures. Material and Methods Sixty incisor teeth (20 higid and 40 with root fracture) from dogs were inserted in 60 anterior alveolar sockets (40 higid and 20 with alveolar fracture) of 15 macerated canine maxillae. Each fractured socket had a root fractured tooth inserted in it. Afterwards, each maxilla was submitted to PR in two different vertical angulation incidences, and to CBCT imaging with a small field of view (FOV) and high-definition protocol. Images were randomized and posteriorly analyzed by two oral and maxillofacial radiologists two times, with a two-week interval between observations. Results Sensitivity and specificity values were good for root fractures for PR and CBCT. For alveolar fractures, sensitivity ranged from 0.10 to 0.90 for PR and from 0.50 to 0.65 for CBCT. Specificity for alveolar fractures showed lower results than for root fractures for PR and CBCT. Areas under the ROC curve showed good results for both PR and CBCT for root fractures. However, results were fair for both PR and CBCT for alveolar fractures. When submitted to repeated measures ANOVA tests, there was a statistically significant difference between PR and CBCT for root fractures. Root fracture intraobserver agreement ranged from 0.90 to 0.93, and alveolar fracture intraobserver agreement ranged from 0.30 to 0.57. Interobserver agreement results were substantial for root fractures and poor/fair for alveolar fractures (0.11 for PR and 0.30 for CBCT). Conclusion Periapical radiograph with two different vertical angulations may be considered an accurate method to detect root fractures. However, PR showed poorer results than CBCT for the diagnosis of alveolar fractures. When no fractures are diagnosed in PR and the patient describes pain symptoms, the subsequent exam of choice is CBCT.