Use of Postbiotic as Growth Promoter in Poultry Industry: A Review of Current Knowledge and Future Prospects.

Health-promoting preparations of inanimate microorganisms or their components are postbiotics. Since probiotics are sensitive to heat and oxygen, postbiotics are stable during industrial processing and storage. Postbiotics boost poultry growth, feed efficiency, intestinal pathogen reduction, and health, making them acceptable drivers of sustainable poultry production. It contains many important biological properties, such as immunomodulatory, antioxidant, and anti-inflammatory responses. Postbiotics revealed promising antioxidant effects due to higher concentrations of uronic acid and due to some enzyme's production of antioxidants, e.g., superoxide dismutase, glutathione peroxidase, and nicotinamide adenine dinucleotide oxidases and peroxidases. Postbiotics improve intestinal villi, increase lactic acid production, and reduce Enterobacteriaceae and fecal pH, all of which lead to a better immune reaction and health of the gut, as well as better growth performance. P13K/AKT as a potential target pathway for postbiotics-improved intestinal barrier functions. Similarly, postbiotics reduce yolk and plasma cholesterol levels in layers and improve egg quality. It was revealed that favorable outcomes were obtained with various inclusion levels at 1 kg and 0.5 kg. According to several studies, postbiotic compounds significantly increased poultry performance. This review article presents the most recent research investigating the beneficial results of postbiotics in poultry.

Comparative Analysis of Three Different Impression Techniques for Impression Defects and Dimensional Accuracy Using a Digital Intraoral Scanner for Fixed Partial Dentures: An In Vivo Study.

AIM: To evaluate the impression defects and compare the dimensional accuracy of three different impression techniques (single-step, two-step without spacer, two-step with spacer) for fixed partial dentures using a digital intraoral scanner in the anterior maxillary region. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Thirty subjects, above the age of 18 years with maxillary central/lateral incisor requiring fixed prostheses were selected according to the inclusion and exclusion criteria. The impressions were rated and evaluated using Heine C2.3K Binocular loupes (Heine Ltd., Dover, NH, USA). An intraoral scanner and digital vernier calipers were used to study and compare the dimensional accuracy of all three impression techniques.  Results: Statistical analysis using the chi-square test revealed that the single-step double mix technique showed the least number of defects (40%), followed by the two-step without spacer (56.7%) and then the two-step with spacer (80%) impression techniques. Using Kruskal Wallis and Mann Whitney U test for dimensional accuracy, it was found that the two-step with spacer impression technique was closer to the control group (intraoral scanner) followed by the two-step without spacer and then the single-step double mix impression techniques. CONCLUSION: All three impression techniques showed the presence of impression defects, mainly voids and bubbles. The single-step double mix and two-step without spacer techniques had more favourable outcomes compared to the two-step with spacer impression technique. The two-step with spacer impression technique was dimensionally more accurate compared to the two-step without spacer and single-step double mix techniques for fixed partial dentures.