Gingival thickness assessment at the mandibular incisors with four methods: A cross-sectional study.

BACKGROUND: This study was conducted to determine accuracy, precision and repeatability of four different methods for assessing gingival thickness METHODS: This cross-sectional study evaluated gingival thickness on 200 consecutively included orthodontic patients. Gingival thickness was assessed at both central mandibular incisors with: 1) transgingival probing with a standard periodontal probe, 2) transgingival probing with a stainless-steel acupuncture needle, 3) ultrasound, and 4) a color-coded periodontal probe. Intra-examiner reproducibility and method error were also evaluated. RESULTS: Transgingival measurements with the standard periodontal probe were found to be more accurate than those with the acupuncture needle, after method error assessment. Acupuncture needle and ultrasound device yielded higher values than the probe. Expected differences between the two methods were 22% more for the mandibular left central incisor (95% confidence interval (CI) = 11% to 32%) and 26% more (95% CI = 13% to 39%) for the mandibular right central incisor when measured with the needle. Ultrasound measurements exceeded probe measurements on average by 0.16 mm at mandibular left central incisor (95% CI = 0.14 to 0.18) and by 0.11 mm for mandibular right central incisor (95% CI = 0.08 to 0.13). Intraclass correlation coefficient concluded good agreement for the color-coded periodontal probe (0.624). CONCLUSIONS: Within the inherent limit of the uncertainty about the true value of gingival thickness, the present results demonstrate the differences between the tested methods, as far as accuracy and reproducibility are concerned. Based on the reproducibility, the transgingival probing with the periodontal probe as well as the ultrasound determination, seem to present an adequate choice for every day practice.

Immunohistochemical evaluation of the mTOR pathway in intra-oral minor salivary gland neoplasms.

OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to investigate the expression of upstream and downstream molecules of the oncogenic mTOR signaling pathway in intra-oral minor salivary gland tumors (SGTs). MATERIALS AND METHODS: Tissue samples consisted of 39 malignant and 13 benign minor SGTs, and 8 controls of normal minor salivary glands (NMSG). An immunohistochemical analysis for phosphorylated Akt, 4EBP1 and S6 (total and phosphorylated), and eIF4E was performed. RESULTS: Expression of pAkt and 4EBP1 was observed in all SGTs and in most NMSG. p4EBP1 was detected in almost all SGT cases, NMSG being negative. S6 immunoreactivity was observed in 37.5% of NMSG, 92.3% of benign and 100% of malignant SGTs, while pS6 expression was observed in 77% of benign and 95% of malignant SGTs, but not in NMSG. Finally, eIF4E was expressed in 12.5% of NMSG, 69.2% of benign, and 76.9% of malignant tumors. All molecules studied had statistically significantly lower expression in NMSG compared with SGTs. Moreover, malignant neoplasms received higher scores compared with benign tumors for all molecules with the exception of eIF4E. CONCLUSION: The mTOR signaling pathway is activated in SGTs, especially in malignancies. Therefore, the possible therapeutic role of targeting the mTOR pathway by rapamycin analogs in SGTs needs further investigation.

Reporting quality of randomised controlled trials published in prosthodontic and implantology journals.

The purpose of this study was to examine the reporting quality of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) published in prosthodontic and implantology journals. Thirty issues of nine journals in prosthodontics and implant dentistry were searched for RCTs, covering the years 2005-2012: The Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry, Journal of Oral Rehabilitation, The International Journal of Prosthodontics, The International Journal of Periodontics & Restorative Dentistry, Clinical Oral Implants Research, Clinical Implant Dentistry & Related Research, The International Journal of Oral & Maxillofacial Implants, Implant Dentistry and Journal of Dentistry. The reporting quality was assessed using a modified Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) statement checklist. Data were analysed using descriptive statistics followed by univariable and multivariable examination of statistical associations (α = 0·05). A total of 147 RCTs were identified with a mean CONSORT score of 69·4 (s.d. = 9·7). Significant differences were found among journals with the Journal of Oral Rehabilitation achieving the highest score (80·6, s.d. = 5·5) followed by Clinical Oral Implants Research (73·7, s.d. = 8·3). Involvement of a statistician/methodologist was significantly associated with increased CONSORT scores. Overall, the reporting quality of RCTs in major prosthodontic and implantology journals requires improvement. This is of paramount importance considering that optimal reporting of RCTs is an important prerequisite for clinical decision-making.