| 1. |
- Lindegren, Sture, 1960, et al.
(författare)
-
Synthesis and biodistribution of 211At-labeled, biotinylated, and charge-modified poly-L-lysine: evaluation for use as an effector molecule in pretargeted intraperitoneal tumor therapy.
- 2002
-
Ingår i: Bioconjugate chemistry. - 1043-1802 .- 1520-4812. ; 13:3, s. 502-9
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Poly-L-lysine (7, 21, and 204 kDa) has been evaluated as an effector carrier for use in pretargeted intraperitoneal tumor therapy. For the synthesis, the epsilon-amino groups on the poly-L-lysine were modified in three steps utilizing conjugate biotinylation with biotin amidocaproate N-hydroxysuccinimide ester (BANHS), conjugate radiolabeling with (211)At using the intermediate reagent N-succinimidyl 3-(trimethylstannyl)benzoate (m-MeATE), and charge modification using succinic anhydride, resulting in an increase in the molecular weight of approximately 80% of the final product. The labeling of the m-MeATE reagent and subsequent conjugation of the polymer were highly efficient with overall radiochemical yields in the range of 60-70%. The in vitro avidin binding ability of the modified polymer was almost complete (90-95%), as determined by binding to avidin beads using a convenient filter tube assay. Following intraperitoneal (ip) injection in athymic mice, the 13 kDa polymer product was cleared mainly via the kidneys with fast kinetics (biological half-live T(b) approximately 2 h) and with low whole-body retention. The clearance of the 38 kDa polymer was distributed between kidneys and liver, and the 363 kDa polymer was mainly sequestered by the liver with a T(b) of 8 h. Increased tissue uptake in the thyroid, lungs, stomach, and spleen following the distribution of the large effector molecules (38 and 363 kDa) suggests that degradation of the polymers by the liver may release some of the label as free astatine/astatide.
|
|
| 2. |
- Åstrand, Per, 1935-, et al.
(författare)
-
Nonsubmerged and submerged implants in the treatment of the partially edentulous maxilla.
- 2002
-
Ingår i: Clinical Implant Dentistry and Related Research. - 1523-0899 .- 1708-8208. ; 4:3, s. 115-127
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- BACKGROUND: Dental implants vary in design and surfaces. In addition, different surgical techniques have been used for implant insertion. The ITI Dental Implant System (Straumann AG, Waldenburg, Switzerland) has always required a one-stage technique, whereas the Brσnemark System (Nobel Biocare AB, Gothenburg, Sweden) requires a two-stage technique. PURPOSE: The aim of this study is to compare the outcome of fixed partial bridges in the maxilla supported by both ITI and Brσnemark implants in a split-mouth design. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Twenty-eight patients with a residual anterior dentition in the maxilla were included in this split-mouth study. The Brσnemark implants were used on one side and the ITI implants on the other side of the residual dentition according to a randomization procedure. A blocking size of four was used, giving equal probability of placing ITI or Brσnemark implants in the right or left side of the jaw. The surgical and prosthetic procedures followed the guidelines given by the manufacturers. The prosthetic treatment with the two-implant systems was performed at the same time, and for that reason the healing period was 6 months for both systems. The observation period for all patients was 1 year after loading. RESULTS: Two Brσnemark implants (in one patient) were lost before loading, and one ITI implant was lost 1 year after loading. There was no significant difference in survival rate. Radiographic examination of the bone level was performed at the time of delivery of the bridge and after 1 year. The mean marginal bone level at baseline was situated 1.9 mm from the reference point for the Brσnemark implants and 1.5 mm for the ITI implants. With regard to the insertion depth used, these bone levels indicate that bone loss had taken place before baseline. However, between baseline and the 1-year examination, there was no significant change of the marginal bone (0.2 +/- 0.08 mm at the Brσnemark implants and 0.1 +/- 0.11 mm at the ITI implants). The difference between results with the two implants was not statistically significant. Crater-form bone destructions were seen at some ITI implants, indicating periimplantitis. However, at only two implants were there clinical signs of periimplantitis. CONCLUSIONS: No significant difference in survival rate or in marginal bone change could be demonstrated between the two systems. At some ITI implants (18%), crater-form bone loss was observed.
|
|
