| 1. |
|
|
| 2. |
- Katsoulis, J, et al.
(författare)
-
Impact of sample storage on detection of periodontal bacteria.
- 2005
-
Ingår i: Oral Microbiology and Immunology. - 0902-0055 .- 1399-302X. ; 20:2, s. 128-130
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- BACKGROUND/AIMS: Information on the impact of sample storage prior to analysis by DNA methods is limited. The aim of this study was to investigate the effect of subgingival sample storage on bacterial detection and enumeration.MATERIAL AND METHODS: Subgingival plaque samples were studied by a) checkerboard DNA-DNA hybridization by immediate processing, b) storage at + 4 degrees C for 6 weeks, c) storage at - 20 degrees C for 6 months or d) storage at - 20 degrees C for 12 months.RESULTS: No differences in total DNA were found between protocol 1 and 2, or between protocol 3 and 4. Protocol 1 yielded 2.4 times more total bacterial DNA than did protocol 3 (P < 0.001). Actinobacillus actinomycetemcomitans and Campylobacter gracilis were detected in 21.1% of the immediately processed samples but only in 6.6% of the samples after 12 months of storage. Similar changes were noticed for Treponema denticola, which was detected in 22.3% and 9.2%, respectively. Streptococci spp., Fusobacterium nucleatum and Tannerella forsythia did not seem to be affected by storage. In contrast, the level of Campylobacter rectus detection frequency changed from 2.6% if processed immediately to 15.8% if samples were stored for 12 months.CONCLUSIONS: In longitudinal clinical studies including microbiological samples and processed with DNA-DNA hybridization methods, samples should be stored for the same period of time before processing to avoid loss of microbiological information.
|
|
| 3. |
- Klinge, Björn, et al.
(författare)
-
Dental implant register: Summary and consensus statements of group 2. The 5th EAO Consensus Conference 2018
- 2018
-
Ingår i: Clinical Oral Implants Research. - : Wiley. - 0905-7161 .- 1600-0501. ; 29:Supplement: 18, s. 157-159
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Objectives: This publication reports the EAO Workshop group-2 and consensus plenary discussions and statements on a narrative review providing the background and possible facilities and importance of a dental implant register, to allow for a systematic follow-up of the clinical outcome of dental implant treatment in various clinical settings. It should be observed that the format of the review and the subsequent consensus report consciously departs from conventional consensus publications and reports. Material and methods: The publication was a narrative review on the presence and significance of quality registers regarding select medical conditions and procedures. The group discussed and evaluated the publication and made corrections and recommendations to the authors and agreed on the statements and recommendations described in this consensus report. Results: Possible registrations to be included in an implant register were discussed and agreed as a preliminary basis for further development, meaning that additional parameters be included or some be deleted. Conclusions: It was agreed to bring the idea of an implant quality register, including the presented results of discussions and proposals by the group- and plenary sessions, to the EAO Board for further discussion and decision.
|
|
| 4. |
- Sanz, M., et al.
(författare)
-
Biological aspects: Summary and consensus statements of group 2. The 5th EAO Consensus Conference 2018
- 2018
-
Ingår i: Clinical Oral Implants Research. - : Wiley. - 0905-7161 .- 1600-0501. ; 29:Supplement: 18, s. 152-156
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Objectives: This publication reports the EAO Workshop group-2 discussions and consensus statements which provided the scientific evidence on the influence of biological parameters on implant-related clinical outcomes. Material and methods: The first publication was a systematic review on the biological effects of abutment material on the stability of peri-implant marginal bone levels and the second, a critical narrative review on how peri-implant diagnostic parameters correspond with long-term implant survival and success. The group evaluated the content of both publications, made corrections and recommendations to the authors and agreed on the consensus statements, clinical recommendations and recommendations for future research, which are described in this consensus report. Results: Tested abutment materials can be considered appropriate for clinical use according to the observation period studied (mean 3.5 years). Mean peri-implant bone loss and mean probing pocket depths are not adequate outcomes to study the prevalence of peri-implantitis, while the reporting of frequency distributions is considered more appropriate. Conclusions: Titanium is currently considered the standard of care as abutment material, although other materials may be more suitable for aesthetic locations. Peri-implantitis should be diagnosed through composite evaluations of peri-implant tissue inflammation and assessment of marginal bone loss with different thresholds.
|
|
| 5. |
- Tonetti, M. S., et al.
(författare)
-
Relevant domains, core outcome sets and measurements for implant dentistry clinical trials: The Implant Dentistry Core Outcome Set and Measurement (ID-COSM) international consensus report
- 2023
-
Ingår i: Journal of Clinical Periodontology. - 0303-6979 .- 1600-051X. ; 50:suppl. 25, s. 5-21
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Aim: Lack of consistently reported outcomes limits progress in evidence-based implant dentistry and quality of care. The objective of this initiative was to develop a core outcome set (COS) and measurements for implant dentistry clinical trials (ID-COSM). Materials and Methods: This Core Outcome Measures in Effectiveness Trials (COMET)-registered international initiative comprised six steps over 24 months: (i) systematic reviews of outcomes reported in the last 10 years; (ii) international patient focus groups; (iii) a Delphi project with a broad range of stakeholders (care providers, clinical researchers, methodologists, patients and industry representatives); (iv) expert group discussions organizing the outcomes in domains using a theoretical framework and identifying the COSs; (v) identification of valid measurement systems to capture the different domains and (vi) final consensus and formal approval involving experts and patients. The methods were modified from the best practice approach following the Outcome Measures in Rheumatoid Arthritis Clinical Trial and COMET manuals. Results: The systematic reviews and patient focus groups identified 754 (665 + 89, respectively) relevant outcome measures. After elimination of redundancies and duplicates, 111 were formally assessed in the Delphi project. By applying prespecified filters, the Delphi process identified 22 essential outcomes. These were reduced to 13 after aggregating alternative assessments of the same features. The expert committee organized them into four core outcome areas: (i) pathophysiology, (ii) implant/prosthesis lifespan, (iii) life impact and (iv) access to care. In each area, core outcomes were identified to capture both the benefits and harms of therapy. Mandatory outcome domains included assessment of surgical morbidity and complications, peri-implant tissue health status, intervention-related adverse events, complication-free survival and overall patient satisfaction and comfort. Outcomes deemed mandatory in specific circumstances comprised function (mastication, speech, aesthetics and denture retention), quality of life, effort for treatment and maintenance and cost effectiveness. Specialized COSs were identified for bone and soft-tissue augmentation procedures. The validity of measurement instruments ranged from international consensus (peri-implant tissue health status) to early identification of important outcomes (patient-reported outcomes identified by the focus groups). Conclusions: The ID-COSM initiative reached a consensus on a core set of mandatory outcomes for clinical trials in implant dentistry and/or soft tissue/bone augmentation. Adoption in future protocols and reporting on the respective domain areas by currently ongoing trials will contribute to improving evidence-informed implant dentistry and quality of care.
|
|
