Nature-Based Solutions in the EU: Innovating with nature to address social, economic and environmental challenges.

Contemporary societies are facing a broad range of challenges, from pressures on human health and well-being to natural capital depletion, and the security of food, water and energy. These challenges are deeply intertwined with global processes, such as climate change and with local events such as natural disasters. The EU's research & innovation (R&I) policy is now seeking to address these challenges from a new perspective, with Nature-Based Solutions, and turn them into innovation opportunities that optimise the synergies between nature, society and the economy. Nature-Based Solutions can be an opportunity for innovation, and are here promoted by both policymakers and practitioners as a cost-effective way of creating a greener, more sustainable, and more competitive economy. Since 2013, the European Commission has devoted particular attention to Nature-Based Solutions through consultations and dialogues that sought to make the concept of these solutions more concrete and to define the concept's place within the spectrum of ecosystem-based approaches. In 2014, the Commission launched an expert group, which conducted further analysis, and made recommendations to help increase the use of Nature-Based Solutions and bring nature back into cities. In 2015, a survey was conducted on citizens' views and perceptions of 'Nature in Cities' to provide further insight for future work. Based on these elements and on results from running EU projects, the Commission has developed an R&I agenda for Nature-Based Solutions and has published targeted calls for proposals for large-scale demonstration projects in this field in 2016 and 2017. Additional R&I actions at EU level that promote systemic Nature-Based Solutions and their benefits to cities and territories are planned with the aim to improve the implementation capacity and evidence base for deploying Nature-Based Solutions and developing corresponding future markets. They are also expected to foster an interdisciplinary R&I and stakeholder community and the exchange of good practices in this field, as well as help shaping and implementing international R&I agendas on Nature-Based Solutions.

Evaluation in vitro of cytotoxicity of dentin desensitizers on human gingival fibroblasts / Evaluación in vitro de la citotoxicidad dedesensibilizantes dentinarios en fibroblastos gingivales humanos

The purpose of this study is to compare the cytotoxic effect of threematerials, which have been used for treating dental hypersensitivity. Materialand method: In vitro study. Clinpro (3M Co, St. Paul, MN. USA), Seal & Protect(Dentsply, DeTrey GmbH. Germany) and UltraEZ (Ultradent Products,Inc., S. South Jordan UT. USA) were used at concentrations of 0.1, 0.05, 0.01 and 0.001g/ml on human gingival fibroblasts. Furthermore, Clinpro and Seal & Protect were applied to this cell culture as polymerized disks. Toxicity was assessed at 24 and 48 hours by the use of the cell viability assay (MTT). Statistical analysis for cell viability was performed using two-way ANOVA and Tukey’s post hoc test. Statistical significance was set at 5 percent. Results: Seal & Protect and Clinpro were found to be highly toxic at 24 and 48 hours, reaching 70 percent toxicity at concentrations over 0.01g/ml. Seal & Protect and Clinpro polymerized disks were toxic at 24 and 48 hours. UltraEZ showed an increased between 46 percent and 67 percent in cell viability at 24 hours and between 8 percent and 45 percent at 48 hours. Statistical analysis showed differences between these three desensitizers when comparing concentration and control group (p<0.05). Discussion: UltraEZ did not have a cytotoxic effect and may be considered a compatible and safe material, whereas polymerized and non-polymerized Clinpro and Seal & Protect should be used with caution...

Introduccion: El proposito de este estudio es comparar el efecto citotoxico de tres materiales que se han utilizado para el tratamiento de la hipersensibilidad dental. Material y metodo: Estudio in-vitro. Los desensibilizantes dentinarios Clinpro (3M ESPE), Seal&Protect (Dentsply) yUltraEZ (Ultradent) fueron utilizados a concentraciones de 0,1; 0,05; 0,01 y 0,001 g/ml sobre cultivos celulares de fibroblastos gingivales humanos. Ademas, Clinpro y Seal&Protect se aplicaron a este cultivo celular como discos polimerizados. La toxicidad se evaluo a 24 y 48 horas mediante ensayo de viabilidad (MTT). El analisis estadistico para la viabilidad celular se realizo mediante ANOVA de dos vias seguido de analisis Tukey. La significancia estadistica se fijo al 5 por ciento. Resultados: Clinpro y Seal&Protect resultaron ser altamente toxicos a las 24 y 48 horas, alcanzando un 70 por ciento de toxicidad aconcentraciones superiores de 0,01 g/ml. Los discos polimerizadosde Clinpro y Seal&Protect fueron toxicos a 24 y 48 horas. UltraEZ produjo un aumento de la viabilidad celular entre un 46 por ciento y 67 por ciento a las 24 horas y entre un 8 por ciento y 45 por ciento a las 48 horas. El analisis estadistico mostro diferencias entreestos tres desensibilizantes al comparar la concentracion y su grupo control (p<0,05). Discusion: UltraEZ no tuvo efecto citotoxico y puede ser considerado como un material compatible y seguro para ser utilizado, mientras que Clinpro y Seal&Protect en su estado polimerizado y no polimerizado deberian ser utilizados con precaucion...