ABSTRACT
Background & objectives: Polio, measles, rubella, influenza and rotavirus surveillance programmes are of great public health importance globally. Virus isolation using cell culture is an integral part of such programmes. Possibility of unintended isolation of SARS-CoV-2 from clinical specimens processed in biosafety level-2 (BSL-2) laboratories during the above-mentioned surveillance programmes, cannot be ruled out. The present study was conducted to assess the susceptibility of different cell lines to SARS- CoV-2 used in these programmes. Methods: Replication of SARS-CoV-2 was studied in RD and L20B, Vero/hSLAM, MA-104 and Madin–Darby Canine Kidney (MDCK) cell lines, used for the isolation of polio, measles, rubella, rotavirus and influenza viruses, respectively. SARS-CoV-2 at 0.01 multiplicity of infection was inoculated and the viral growth was assessed by observation of cytopathic effects followed by real-time reverse transcription–polymerase chain reaction (qRT-PCR). Vero CCL-81 cell line was used as a positive control. Results: SARS-CoV-2 replicated in Vero/hSLAM, and MA-104 cells, whereas it did not replicate in L20B, RD and MDCK cells. Vero/hSLAM, and Vero CCL-81 showed rounding, degeneration and detachment of cells; MA-104 cells also showed syncytia formation. In qRT-PCR, Vero/hSLAM and MA-104 showed 106 and Vero CCL-81 showed 107 viral RNA copies per ?l. The 50 per cent tissue culture infectious dose titres of Vero/hSLAM, MA-104 and Vero CCL-81 were 105.54, 105.29 and 106.45/ml, respectively. Interpretation & conclusions: Replication of SARS-CoV-2 in Vero/hSLAM and MA-104 underscores the possibility of its unintended isolation during surveillance procedures aiming to isolate measles, rubella and rotavirus. This could result in accidental exposure to high titres of SARS-CoV-2, which can result in laboratory acquired infections and community risk, highlighting the need for revisiting biosafety measures in public health laboratories
ABSTRACT
The purpose of this systematic review was to assess the published data concerning zirconia dental implants from various aspects. To identify relevant literature an electronic search was performed of PubMed. Titles and abstracts were screened and articles that fulfilled the inclusion criteria were selected for a full-text reading. Articles were divided into four groups: 1) studies evaluating the mechanical properties of zirconia implants, 2) studies on osseointegration of zirconia, 3) studies on peri-implant tissue response to zirconia implant, and 4) studies on plaque accumulation with zirconia. Review of the selected articles showed that zirconia implants are reliable for placement in the jaw bone. Furthermore, zirconia implants present a material surface that is compatible with the peri-implant tissue and relatively less attractive to plaque. Based on the reviewed literature, it appears that zirconia has the potential to become the dental implant material of choice, especially for aesthetic restorations; however, some issues need to be studied further.