Biological and dosimetric characterisation of spatially fractionated proton minibeams.

The biological effectiveness of proton beams varies with depth, spot size and lateral distance from the beam central axis. The aim of this work is to incorporate proton relative biological effectiveness (RBE) and equivalent uniform dose (EUD) considerations into comparisons of broad beam and highly modulated proton minibeams. A Monte Carlo model of a small animal proton beamline is presented. Dose and variable RBE is calculated on a per-voxel basis for a range of energies (30-109 MeV). For an open beam, the RBE values at the beam entrance ranged from 1.02-1.04, at the Bragg peak (BP) from 1.3 to 1.6, and at the distal end of the BP from 1.4 to 2.0. For a 50 MeV proton beam, a minibeam collimator designed to produce uniform dose at the depth of the BP peak, had minimal impact on the open beam RBE values at depth. RBE changes were observed near the surface when the collimator was placed flush with the irradiated object, due to a higher neutron contribution derived from proton interactions with the collimator. For proton minibeams, the relative mean RBE weighted entrance dose (RWD) was ~25% lower than the physical mean dose. A strong dependency of the EUD with fraction size was observed. For 20 Gy fractions, the EUD varied widely depending on the radiosensitivity of the cells. For radiosensitive cells, the difference was up to ~50% in mean dose and ~40% in mean RWD and the EUD trended towards the valley dose rather than the mean dose. For comparative studies of uniform dose with spatially fractionated proton minibeams, EUD derived from a per-voxel RWD distribution is recommended for biological assessments of reproductive cell survival and related endpoints.

Safety issues when using a 16% carbamide peroxide whitening solution.

BACKGROUND: The scientific literature is lacking on the occurrence of side effects and other safety issues when using carbamide peroxide whitening solutions of concentrations greater than 10%. This double-blind nightguard vital bleaching study compares safety issues when using 16% carbamide peroxide against a placebo or 10% carbamide peroxide (Nite White Classic by Discus Dental Inc.). Evaluated were changes in gingival index, plaque index, nonmarginal gingival index, nongingival oral mucosal index, tooth vitality, and the patients' perceptions of tooth sensitivity and gingival irritation. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Twenty female dental hygiene students participated in the study. Each participant wore a maxillary treatment tray for 1 week without any solution and then for 8 to 10 hours per night for 14 nights, filling each quadrant with placebo, 10% carbamide peroxide, or 16% carbamide peroxide, using a split tray design. RESULTS: With respect to gingival index, plaque index, nonmarginal gingival index, nongingival oral mucosa index, tooth vitality, and tooth sensitivity, there were no statistically significant differences between the 16% carbamide peroxide solution and the other two solutions (p > .05). Quadrants receiving the 16% carbamide peroxide solution experienced more gingival irritation than quadrants receiving placebo or 10% carbamide peroxide solution (p > .05). CONCLUSIONS: When evaluating the above-mentioned safety issues, except for gingival irritation, there were no statistically significant differences between a 16% carbamide peroxide solution and 10% carbamide peroxide solution or a placebo when used as described here. CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE: Among the 20 participants whose data were analyzed, it was found that a 16% carbamide peroxide whitening solution (Nite White Classic), when used as described in this study, can be effective in nightguard vital bleaching with no statistical differences in gingival index, plaque index, nonmarginal gingival index, nongingival oral mucosa changes, tooth vitality, or tooth sensitivity, compared with a 10% whitening solution (Nite White Classic). More gingival irritation was experienced with 16% carbamide peroxide. Additionally, 20% of the participants in this study self-reported sensitivity when wearing their treatment tray without any solution, and 36% of the participants reported sensitivity to the placebo solution.