ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: The aim of the present retrospective study was to assess peri-implant soft tissue health for implants restored with different prosthetic emergence profile angles. METHODS: Patients were treated with implants supporting fixed dentures and were followed for 3 years. Buccal emergence angle (EA) measured at 3 years of follow-up visits (t1) were calculated for two different groups: Group 1 (153 implants) for restorations with angle between implant axis and prosthetic emergence angle from ≥30°, and Group 2 (67 implants) for those with angle ≤30°, respectively. Image J software was used for the measurements. Moreover, peri-implant soft tissue parameters such as pocket probing depth (PPD), plaque index (PI) and gingival index (GI) were assessed, respectively. RESULTS: A total of 57 patients were included in the analysis and a total of 220 implants were examined. Mean (±SD) EA in Groups 1 and 2 was 46.4 ± 12.2 and 24.5 ± 4.7 degrees, respectively. After 3 years of follow-up, a PPD difference of 0.062 mm (CI95% -0.041 mm; 0.164 mm) was calculated between the two groups and was not statistically significant (p = 0.238). Similar results were found for PI (OR = 0.78, CI95% 0.31; 1.98, p = 0.599). Furthermore, GI scores of 2 and 3 were found for nine implants (5.9%) in Group 1, and for five implants in Group 2 (7.5%). A non-significant difference (p = 0.76) was found. CONCLUSIONS: Peri-implant soft-tissue health does not seem to be influenced by EA itself, when a proper emergence profile is provided for implant-supported reconstructions in anterior areas.
ABSTRACT
Recent research provides insight into the ability of miRNA to regulate various pathways in several cancer types. Despite their involvement in the regulation of the mRNA via targeting the 3'UTR, there are relatively few studies examining the changes in these regulatory mechanisms specific to single cancer types or shared between different cancer types. We analyzed samples where both miRNA and mRNA expression had been measured and performed a thorough correlation analysis on 7494 experimentally validated human miRNA-mRNA target-gene pairs in both healthy and tumoral samples. We show how more than 90% of these miRNA-mRNA interactions show a loss of regulation in the tumoral samples compared with their healthy counterparts. As expected, we found shared miRNA-mRNA dysregulated pairs among different tumors of the same tissue. However, anatomically different cancers also share multiple dysregulated interactions, suggesting that some cancer-related mechanisms are not tumor-specific. 2865 unique miRNA-mRNA pairs were identified across 13 cancer types, ≈ 40% of these pairs showed a loss of correlation in the tumoral samples in at least 2 out of the 13 analyzed cancers. Specifically, miR-200 family, miR-155 and miR-1 were identified, based on the computational analysis described below, as the miRNAs that potentially lose the highest number of interactions across different samples (only literature-based interactions were used for this analysis). Moreover, the miR-34a/ALDH2 and miR-9/MTHFD2 pairs show a switch in their correlation between healthy and tumor kidney samples suggesting a possible change in the regulation exerted by the miRNAs. Interestingly, the expression of these mRNAs is also associated with the overall survival. The disruption of miRNA regulation on its target, therefore, suggests the possible involvement of these pairs in cell malignant functions. The analysis reported here shows how the regulation of miRNA-mRNA interactions strongly differs between healthy and tumoral cells, based on the strong correlation variation between miRNA and its target that we obtained by analyzing the expression data of healthy and tumor tissue in highly reliable miRNA-target pairs. Finally, a go term enrichment analysis shows that the critical pairs identified are involved in cellular adhesion, proliferation, and migration.
ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: Peri-implantitis treatment is a very challenging topic to discuss. What is certain is that preventive/supportive therapy plays a key-role in peri-implant tissues' health maintenance and non-surgical implant surface mechanical debridement remains one of the solid pillars in the therapeutic pathway. In this perspective, many surface decontaminating methods have been proposed and tested to remove hard and soft bacterial deposits. The aim of this study was to compare four different commonly used non-surgical implant debridement methods in terms of cleaning potential in vitro, using a peri-implant pocket-simulating model. METHODS: Sixty-four dental implants were ink-stained and placed into a simulated peri-implant pocket. Samples were then divided into four groups and treated with different debridement methods: stainless-steel ultrasonic tip (PS), peek-coated ultrasonic tip (PI), sub-gingival air-polishing with erythritol powder (EHX) and sub-gingival air-polishing with glycine powder (GLY). For each treatment group, half of the samples were treated for 5 seconds and the other half for 45 seconds. High-resolution images were taken using a digital microscope and later analyzed with a light processing software for measuring the cleaned area percentage (ink-free). Two different images were captured for every sample: a first image with the implant positioned perpendicular to the microscope lenses (90°) and a second one with the implant placed with a 45° vertical angulation, with the smooth neck towards the ground. Percentage of removed ink was statistically modelled using a generalized linear mixed model with the implant as a random (clustering) factor. RESULTS: A paired comparison between all treatments in terms of debridement potential (cleaned area percentage) was performed. In 5s and with 90° sample angulation EHX/PS comparison showed an odds ratio of 2.75 (P<0.001), PI/EHX an OR of 0.20 (P<0.001), GLY/PS an OR of 2.90 (P<0.001), PI/GLY an OR of 0.19 (P<0.001) and PI/PS an OR of 0.56 (P=0.105). With the same sample angulation and 45s treatment time, the OR was 6.97 (P<0.001) for EHX/PS comparison, 0.14 (P<0.001) for PI/EHX comparison, 4.99 (P<0.001) for GLY/PS, 0.19 (P<0.001) for PI/GLY and 0.95 for PI/PS (P =0.989). With 5s of treatment time and 45° sample angulation, EHX/PS comparison shows a 3.19 odds ratio (P<0.001), PI/EHX a 0.14 odds ratio (P<0.001), GLY/PS a 3.06 odds ratio (P<0.001), PI/GLY a 0.15 odds ratio (P<0.001) and PI/PS a 0.46 odds ratio (P=0.017). With the same sample angulation but 45s treatment time, EHX/PS comparison produced an odds ratio of 4.90 (P<0.001), PI/EHX an OR of 0.20 (P<0.001), GLY/PS an OR of 8.74 (P<0.001), PI/GLY an OR of 0.11 (P<0.001) and PI/PS an OR 0.96 of (P =0.996). CONCLUSIONS: Among the four treatments considered, air-polishing therapy represents the best one in terms of ink removal from the implant surface. Furthermore, increasing the treatment time to 45 seconds, air-polishing resulted considerably more efficient.
