Sustainable multifunctional phenolic lipids as potential therapeutics in Dentistry.

Phenolic lipids components of the cashew nutshell liquid (CNSL) have molecular structures capable of chemical signalling that regulate gene expression, metabolism and inflammation. This study sets out to assess how CNSL derivatives impact oral bacteria, from an antibacterial and anti-collagenolytic perspective, as well as its biocompatibility with dental pulp stem cells. Two hemi-synthetic saturated CNSL derivative compounds were selected (LDT11-Anacardic Acids-derivative and LDT409-cardanol-derivative). Bacteriostatic activity was tested against Streptococcus mutans and Veillonella parvula. Antimicrobial capacity against preformed S. mutans biofilms was investigated using a collagen-coated Calgary Biofilm Device and confocal microscopy. Clostridium histolyticum, P. gingivalis and S. mutans biofilms were used to assess anti-collagenolytic activity. Biocompatibility with human dental pulp stromal cells (HDPSCs) was investigated (MTT for viability proportion, LDH assays for cell death rate). LDTs inhibited the bacterial growth, as well as partially inhibited bacterial collagenases in concentrations higher than 5 µg/mL. Dose-response rates of biofilm cell death was observed (LDT11 at 20, 50, 100 µg/mL = 1.0 ± 0.4, 0.7 ± 0.3, 0.6 ± 0.03, respectively). Maximum cytotoxicity was 30%. After 1 week, LDT409 had no HDPSCs death. HDPSCs viability was decreased after 24 h of treatment with LDT11 and LDT409, but recovered at 72 h and showed a massive increase in viability and proliferation after 1 week. LDTs treatment was associated with odontoblast-like morphology. In conclusion, LDT11 multifunctionality and biocompatibility, stimulating dental pulp stem cells proliferation and differentiation, indicates a potential as a bio-based dental material for regenerative Dentistry. Its potential as a bacterial collagenases inhibitor to reduce collagen degradation in root/dentinal caries can be further explored.

Nova face de um velho problema: o autoplágio no cenário da produção científica / A new side of an old problem: self-plagiarism in scientific publications

Este artigo é parte de uma série especial que foi desenvolvida para auxiliar autores no processo da redação científica e comunicação. No cenário da produção científica, dentre as várias infrações éticas, está cada vez mais comum a ocorrência do plágio. Define-se plágio como a apresentação de uma obra contendo partes que pertençam a outra pessoa, sem o devido crédito. Um tipo de plágio que tem ganhado destaque nos últimos anos é o autoplágio, no qual o próprio autor reutiliza seus trabalhos anteriores sem a devida referência. Entretanto, há discussões na comunidade científica sobre esse tipo de plágio, estendendo o termo a algumas má-condutas específicas em publicações científicas. Isso acaba gerando artigos inautênticos e prejudicando a integridade da ciência. O presente artigo tem por objetivo abordar de forma mais detalhada o que é autoplágio, seus motivos e consequências para a comunidade científica. Para tanto, realizou-se uma pesquisa não sistemática da literatura, a fim de também apresentar os principais tipos de autoplágio, o que pode ser feito para evitá-lo e como proceder quando o mesmo é detectado.

This article is part of a special series that was designed to assist authors in the process of scientific writing and communication. Among the various forms of ethical misconduct in scientific publishing, plagiarism is increasingly common. Plagiarism is defined as the presentation of a work containing parts authored by another person without due credit. One type of plagiarism that has gained prominence in recent years is self-plagiarism, in which authors themselves reuse their previous work without proper referencing. However, active discussion remains in the scientific community about this type of plagiarism, with the term being extended to some specific forms of misconduct in scientific publication. This practice leads to inauthentic work and ultimately undermines the integrity of science. The purpose of this article is to address in depth the definition of self-plagiarism, the underlying motives for this practice and its consequences for the scientific community. To do so, a non-systematic review of the literature was conducted. Guidance is provided on the major types of self-plagiarism, what can be done to avoid it and how to proceed when it is detected.