Accuracy of linear measurements around dental implants by means of cone beam computed tomography with different exposure parameters.

OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to determine the accuracy of linear measurements around dental implants when using CBCT unit devices presenting different exposure parameters. METHODS: Dental implants (n = 18) were installed in the maxilla of human dry skulls, and images were obtained using two CBCT devices: G1-Care Stream 9300 (70 kVp, 6.3 mA, voxel size 0.18 mm, field of view 8 × 8 cm; Carestream Health, Rochester, NY) and G2-R100 Veraview® (75 kVp, 7.0 mA, voxel size 0.125 mm, field of view 8 × 8 cm; J Morita, Irvine, CA). Measurements of bone thickness were performed at three points located (A) in the most apical portion of the implant, (B) 5 mm above the apical point and (C) in the implant platform. Afterwards, values were compared with real measurements obtained by an optical microscopy [control group (CG)]. Data were statistically analyzed with the significance level of p ≤ 0.05. RESULTS: There was no statistical difference for the mean values of bone thickness on Point A (CG: 4.85 ± 2.25 mm, G1: 4.19 ± 1.68 mm, G2: 4.15 ± 1.75 mm), Point B (CG: 1.50 ± 0.84 mm, G1: 1.61 ± 1.27 mm; G2: 1.68 ± 0.82 mm) and Point C (CG: 1.78 ± 1.33 mm, G1: 1.80 ± 1.09 mm; G2: 1.64 ± 1.11 mm). G1 and G2 differed in bone thickness by approximately 0.76 mm for Point A, 0.36 mm for Point B and 0.08 mm for Point C. A lower intraclass variability was identified for CG (Point A = 0.20 ± 0.25; Point B = 0.15 ± 0.20; Point C = 0.06 ± 0.05 mm) in comparison with G1 (Point A = 0.56 ± 0.52; Point B = 0.48 ± 0.50; Point C = 0.47 ± 0.56 mm) and G2 (Point A = 0.57 ± 0.51; Point B = 0.46 ± 0.46; Point C = 0.36 ± 0.31 mm). CONCLUSIONS: CBCT devices showed acceptable accuracy for linear measurements around dental implants, despite the exposure parameters used.

A proposal for refining the forced swim test in Swiss mice.

The forced swim test (FST) is a preclinical test to the screening of antidepressants based on rats or mice behaviours, which is also sensitive to stimulants of motor activity. This work standardised and validated a method to register the active and passive behaviours of Swiss mice during the FST in order to strength the specificity of the test. Adult male Swiss mice were subjected to the FST for 6 min without any treatment or after intraperitoneal injection of saline (0.1 ml/10 g), antidepressants (imipramine, desipramine, or fluoxetine, 30 mg/kg) or stimulants (caffeine, 30 mg/kg or apomorphine, 10mg/kg). The latency, frequency and duration of behaviours (immobility, swimming, and climbing) were scored and summarised in bins of 6, 4, 2 or 1 min. Parameters were first analysed using Principal Components Analysis generating components putatively related to antidepressant (first and second) or to stimulant effects (third). Antidepressants and stimulants affected similarly the parameters grouped into all components. Effects of stimulants on climbing were better distinguished of antidepressants when analysed during the last 4 min of the FST. Surprisingly, the effects of antidepressants on immobility were better distinguished from saline when parameters were scored in the first 2 min. The method proposed here is able to distinguish antidepressants from stimulants of motor activity using Swiss mice in the FST. This refinement should reduce the number of mice used in preclinical evaluation of antidepressants.