Extensive comparison of salivary collection, transportation, preparation, and storage methods: a systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Human saliva as a bodily fluid-similar to blood-is utilized for diagnostic purposes. Unlike blood sampling, collecting saliva is non-invasive, inexpensive, and readily accessible. There are no previously published systematic reviews regarding different collection, transportation, preparation, and storage methods for human saliva. DESIGN: This study has been prepared and organized according to the preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses (PRISMA) 2020 guidelines. This systematic review has been registered at PROSPERO (Registration ID: CRD42023415384). The study question according to the PICO format was as followed: Comparison of the performance (C) of different saliva sampling, handling, transportation, and storage techniques and methods (I) assessed for analyzing stimulated or unstimulated human saliva (P and O). An electronic search was executed in Scopus, Google Scholar, and PubMed. RESULTS: Twenty-three descriptive human clinical studies published between 1995 and 2022 were included. Eight categories of salivary features and biomarkers were investigated (i.e., salivary flow rate, total saliva quantity, total protein, cortisol, testosterone, DNA quality and quantity, pH and buffering pH). Twenty-two saliva sampling methods/devices were utilized. Passive drooling, Salivette®, and spitting were the most utilized methods. Sampling times with optimum capabilities for cortisol, iodine, and oral cancer metabolites are suggested to be 7:30 AM to 9:00 AM, 10:30 AM to 11:00 AM, and 14:00 PM to 20:00 PM, respectively. There were 6 storage methods. Centrifuging samples and storing them at -70 °C to -80 °C was the most utilized storage method. For DNA quantity and quality, analyzing samples immediately after collection without centrifuging or storage, outperformed centrifuging samples and storing them at -70 °C to -80 °C. Non-coated Salivette® was the most successful method/device for analyzing salivary flow rate. CONCLUSION: It is highly suggested that scientists take aid from the reported categorized outcomes, and design their study questions based on the current voids for each method/device.

Comparison of the analgesic effects of single-dose 75 mg oral pregabalin versus single-dose 400 mg oral ibuprofen after impacted third mandibular molar surgery: A randomized, double-blind, split-mouth clinical trial.

BACKGROUND: Pain is the most prevalent complication after dentoalveolar surgery. Failure in effective pain control could potentially lead to systemic sequels, such as tachycardia, hypertension, improper nutrition, and central sensitization. Pregabalin is a gamma-aminobutyric acid (GABA) analog with inhibitory and analgesic effects on the central nervous system (CNS). Prescribing gabapentinoids as complementary analgesics reduces the consumption of opioid and non-opioid analgesics, and consequently their side effects. OBJECTIVES: The main purpose of the present study was to compare the analgesic effects of pregabalin (single-dose 75 mg) vs. ibuprofen (single-dose 400 mg) on patients' pain levels after impacted third mandibular molar surgery. MATERIAL AND METHODS: In this randomized, double-blind, split-mouth clinical trial, 24 patients aged 19-34 years volunteered for 2 consecutive (1 month apart) third mandibular molar surgeries (the contralateral teeth). The patients were randomly placed into 2 groups: group G1 (n = 12) was prescribed pregabalin (single-dose 75 mg) after the 1st surgery and ibuprofen (single-dose 400 mg) after the 2nd surgery; and group G2 (n = 12) was prescribed the exact opposite of the G1 arrangement. During the first 24 h post-surgery, the patients recorded the number of complementary analgesics they took (single-dose 400 mg ibuprofen) and their level of pain on a visual analog scale (VAS) every 2 h. RESULTS: The average level of pain at 2 h post-surgery (T1) was significantly lower when pregabalin was prescribed (p < 0.05). Most patients needed complementary analgesics at 4 h post-surgery (T2). However, during the first 24 h post-surgery, the patients required significantly more complementary analgesics when ibuprofen was prescribed. CONCLUSIONS: In comparison with oral ibuprofen (single-dose 400 mg), oral pregabalin (single-dose 75 mg) had a stronger analgesic effect at 2 h after impacted third mandibular molar surgery (p < 0.05). Pregabalin resulted in a significantly lower consumption of complementary analgesics in the first 24 h post-surgery as compared to ibuprofen.

Comparative Biocompatibility and Odonto-/Osteogenesis Effects of Hydraulic Calcium Silicate-Based Cements in Simulated Direct and Indirect Approaches for Regenerative Endodontic Treatments: A Systematic Review.

BACKGROUND: Regenerative dentistry is the operation of restoring dental, oral and maxillofacial tissues. Currently, there are no guidelines for the ideal cement/material in regenerative endodontic treatments (RET). Hydraulic calcium silicate-based cements (hCSCs) are currently the material of choice for RET. OBJECTIVES: This systematic review was conducted to gather all of the different direct and indirect approaches of using hCSCs in RET in vitro and in vivo, and to ascertain if there are any superiorities to indirect approaches. METHODS AND MATERIALS: This systematic review was conducted according to the 2020 PRISMA guidelines. The study question according to the PICO format was as follows: Comparison of the biological behavior (O) of stem cells (P) exposed to hCSCs through direct and indirect methods (I) with untreated stem cells (C). An electronic search was executed in Scopus, Google Scholar, and PubMed. RESULTS: A total of 78 studies were included. Studies were published between 2010 and 2022. Twenty-eight commercially available and eighteen modified hCSCs were used. Seven exposure methods (four direct and three indirect contacts) were assessed. ProRoot MTA and Biodentine were the most used hCSCs and had the most desirable results. hCSCs were either freshly mixed or set before application. Most studies allowed hCSCs to set in incubation for 24 h before application, which resulted in the most desirable biological outcomes. Freshly mixed hCSCs had the worst outcomes. Indirect methods had significantly better viability/proliferation and odonto-/osteogenesis outcomes. CONCLUSION: Biodentine and ProRoot MTA used in indirect exposure methods result in desirable biological outcomes.