Investigation of the Effectiveness of an Algorithm as an Auxiliary Method in Intraoperative Consultations of Central Nervous System Tumors.

OBJECTIVE: One of the most difficult areas in a surgical pathology practice is intraoperative consultation. In a previous study, we proposed an algorithm that provides a systematic approach to intraoperative consultation for central nervous system tumors. Our aim was to demonstrate the effectiveness of this algorithm. MATERIAL AND METHODS: 102 cases were selected from intraoperative consultation procedures performed at our institution between 2012 and 2020. The algorithm was tested by five observers. The observers examined the smears and frozen sections without the algorithm, and then with the algorithm. RESULTS: The percentage change in the rate of correct diagnoses made by the four observers (O) increased after using the algorithm (O2: 8%, O3: 5%, O4: 8% and O5: 13%), but decreased for only one observer (O1) (5%). The most common error made by the four observers was `grading of glial tumors` (O1: 40%; O2: 23%; O4: 40% and O5: 27.5%), and this group of errors was mostly corrected by using the algorithm (O1: 33%; O2: 3.8%; O4: 23% and O5: 10%). For two observers (O2 and O5), a statistically significant change in diagnostic levels was observed after using the algorithm (p=0.024 and p=0.040; respectively). In addition, thanks to the use of the algorithm, a high degree of agreement was found between the observers` diagnoses (77.7%, p < 0.001). CONCLUSION: In the intraoperative consultation of central nervous system lesions, algorithms can help to increase the accuracy of the diagnosis and reduce interobserver variability. This study demonstrates that an algorithmic approach is an effective method for pathologists in intraoperative consultation procedures.

Evaluating clinical and laboratory effects of ozone in non-surgical periodontal treatment: a randomized controlled trial.

OBJECTIVE: This study aims to evaluate the clinical and biochemical (oxidative stress and pro-inflammatory mediators) effects of the gaseous ozone use accompanied by scaling and root planning (SRP) in periodontal treatment. MATERIAL AND METHODS: The study population consisted of 40 patients with chronic periodontitis (CP) randomly sorted into two groups of 20. The experimental group received SRP plus 3 watts gaseous ozone in two separate applications five days apart, whereas the control group received SRP plus placebo. Clinical periodontal parameters were assayed and saliva samples were taken before the initial and one month after the second treatment. Periodontal examination assessed plaque index (PI), gingival index (GI), probing depth, and clinical attachment level (CAL). Total antioxidant status (TAS), total oxidant status (TOS), nitric oxide (NO), 8-hydroxy-2'-deoxyguanosine (8-OHdG), myeloperoxidase (MPO), glutathione (GSH), malondialdehyde (MDA), and transforming growth factor-beta (TGF-ß) levels were evaluated from saliva samples. RESULTS: Changes following treatment in PI, GI, probing depth, and CAL scores were similar for both groups (p>0.05). Of note, TGF-ß levels were observed to be higher in the treatment group than in controls (p<0.05). Changes in 8-OHdG, TAS, TOS, NO, MPO, GSH and MDA levels, however, were not significantly different between groups (p>0.05). CONCLUSION: The findings of this study indicate that SRP plus gaseous ozone versus SRP alone does not correlate to a significant improvement in periodontal recovery.

Evaluating clinical and laboratory effects of ozone in non-surgical periodontal treatment: a randomized controlled trial

Abstract Objective: This study aims to evaluate the clinical and biochemical (oxidative stress and pro-inflammatory mediators) effects of the gaseous ozone use accompanied by scaling and root planning (SRP) in periodontal treatment. Material and Methods: The study population consisted of 40 patients with chronic periodontitis (CP) randomly sorted into two groups of 20. The experimental group received SRP plus 3 watts gaseous ozone in two separate applications five days apart, whereas the control group received SRP plus placebo. Clinical periodontal parameters were assayed and saliva samples were taken before the initial and one month after the second treatment. Periodontal examination assessed plaque index (PI), gingival index (GI), probing depth, and clinical attachment level (CAL). Total antioxidant status (TAS), total oxidant status (TOS), nitric oxide (NO), 8-hydroxy-2'-deoxyguanosine (8-OHdG), myeloperoxidase (MPO), glutathione (GSH), malondialdehyde (MDA), and transforming growth factor-beta (TGF-β) levels were evaluated from saliva samples. Results: Changes following treatment in PI, GI, probing depth, and CAL scores were similar for both groups (p>0.05). Of note, TGF-β levels were observed to be higher in the treatment group than in controls (p<0.05). Changes in 8-OHdG, TAS, TOS, NO, MPO, GSH and MDA levels, however, were not significantly different between groups (p>0.05). Conclusion: The findings of this study indicate that SRP plus gaseous ozone versus SRP alone does not correlate to a significant improvement in periodontal recovery.