The precision of drill calibration for dynamic navigation.

OBJECTIVES: To quantify the reproducibility of the drill calibration process in dynamic navigation guided placement of dental implants and to identify the human factors that could affect the precision of this process in order to improve the overall implant placement accuracy. METHODS: A set of six drills and four implants were calibrated by three operators following the standard calibration process of NaviDent® (ClaroNav Inc.). The reproducibility of the position of each tip of a drill or implant was calculated in relation to the pre-planned implants' entry and apex positions. Intra- and inter-operator reliabilities were reported. The effects of the drill length and shape on the reproducibility of the calibration process were also investigated. The outcome measures for reproducibility were expressed in terms of variability range, average and maximum deviations from the mean distance. RESULTS: A satisfactory inter-rater reproducibility was noted. The precision of the calibration of the tip position in terms of variability range was between 0.3 and 3.7 mm. We noted a tendency towards a higher precision of the calibration process with longer drills. More calibration errors were observed when calibrating long zygomatic implants with non-locking adapters than with pointed drills. Flexible long-pointed drills had low calibration precision that was comparable to the non-flexible short-pointed drills. CONCLUSION: The clinicians should be aware of the calibration error associated with the dynamic navigation placement of dental and zygomatic implants. This should be taken in consideration especially for long implants, short drills, and long drills that have some degree of flexibility. CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE: Dynamic navigation procedures are associated with an inherent drill calibration error. The manual stability during the calibration process is crucial in minimising this error. In addition, the clinician must never ignore the prescribed accuracy checking procedures after each calibration process.

Systematic scoping review: Use of the faecal immunochemical test residual buffer to enhance colorectal cancer screening.

BACKGROUND: The faecal immunochemical test (FIT) is an inexpensive and convenient modality to screen for colorectal cancer. However, its one-time sensitivity for detecting colorectal cancer and cancer precursors is limited. There is growing interest in using the non-haemoglobin contents of FIT residual buffer to enhance colonic neoplasia detection. AIM: To establish from the literature a framework to catalogue candidate biomarkers within FIT residual buffer for non-invasive colorectal cancer screening. METHODS: The search strategy evaluated PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, Embase, and Google Scholar for publications through 25 October 2023, with search terms including FIT, buffer, OC-sensor, biomarkers, microbiome, microRNA (miR), colon, rectum, screening, neoplasm, and early detection. Studies employing home-based collection samples using quantitative FIT first processed for haemoglobin were included. One author reviewed all articles; a second author completed a 20% full-text audit to ensure adherence to eligibility criteria. RESULTS: A broad search yielded 1669 studies and application of eligibility criteria identified 18 relevant studies. Multiple protein, DNA/RNA, and microbiome biomarkers (notably haptoglobin, miR-16, miR-27a-3p, miR-92a, miR-148a-3p, miR-223, miR-421, let-7b-5p, and Tyzzerella 4) were associated with colorectal neoplasia. Furthermore, studies highlighted the short-term stability of biomarkers for clinical use and long-term stability for research purposes. CONCLUSIONS: This scoping review summarises the framework and progress of research on stability of biomarkers in FIT residual buffer and their associations with colorectal neoplasia to guide opportunities for further confirmatory studies to enhance colorectal cancer screening.

Fecal Immunochemical Test Screening: Maximizing Success by Minimizing Failure.

Implementing fecal immunochemical testing (FIT) through clinic based opportunistic screening or programmatic mailing is not as straightforward as it seems. Liu and colleagues present data for 56,980 individuals who submitted a FIT in a safety net hospital system. In 10.2% (N = 5,819), the test was deemed unsatisfactory. These data demonstrate that there is significant room for improvement in clinical practice regarding colorectal cancer screening with FIT. The high rate of 10% for unsatisfactory FIT tests is higher than the 5% benchmark suggested by the U.S. Multi-Society Task Force on colorectal cancer screening. To maximize FIT success, there needs to be a preoccupation with failure at the system level that results in reducing the number of FIT tests that are rejected. Completing a stool test independently at home is not easy. The medical system needs to help and support individuals in completing the test every step of the way. Suggestions include patient related tips such as labelling and mailing the tests. There are also suggestions for the ordering clinician including administrative tracking to notify clinicians when a FIT has not been performed or is rejected. Papers like this get us focused exactly where we need to be to improve FIT-based screening. See related article by Liu et al., p. 215.

The Accuracy of Intraoral Registration for Dynamic Surgical Navigation in the Edentulous Maxilla.

PURPOSE: Despite the high clinical accuracy of dynamic navigation, inherent sources of error exist. The purpose of this study was to improve the accuracy of dynamic navigated surgical procedures in the edentulous maxilla by identifying the optimal configuration of intra-oral points that results in the lowest possible registration error for direct clinical implementation. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Six different 4-area configurations were tested by 3 operators against positive and negative controls (8-areas and 3-areas, respectively) using a skull model. The two dynamic navigation systems (X-Guide® and NaviDent®) and the two registration methods (bone surface tracing and fiducial markers) produced four registration groups. The accuracy of the registration was checked at the frontal process of the zygoma. Intra- and inter- operator reliability for each registration group were reported. Multiple comparisons were conducted to find the best configuration with the minimum registration error. RESULTS: Ranking revealed one configuration in the tracing groups (Conf.3) and two configurations in the fiducial groups (Conf.3 and Conf.5) that had the best accuracy. When the inferior surfaces of the zygomatic buttress were excluded, fiducial registration produced better accuracy with both systems (p 0.006 and <0.0001). However, tracing 1 cm areas at these surfaces bilaterally resulted in similar registration accuracy as placing fiducial markers there (p 0.430 and 0.237). NaviDent® performed generally better (p 0.049, 0.001 and 0.002) albeit having a wider margin of uncertainty in the obtained values. Changing the distribution of the 4 tracing areas or fiducial markers had a less pronounced effect with X-Guide® than with the NaviDent® system. CONCLUSION: For edentulous maxillary surgeries, 4 fiducial markers placed according to configuration 3 or 5 result in the lowest registration error. Where implants are being placed bilaterally, an additional 2 sites may reduce the error further. For bilateral zygomatic implant placement, it is optimal to place 2 fiducials on the inferior surfaces of the maxillary tuberosities, other 2 on their buccal surfaces, and 2 on the anterior labial surface of the alveolar bone. Utilising the inferior zygomatic buttress is recommended over the inferior maxillary tuberosities in other types of maxillary surgeries.

Colonoscopy vs the Fecal Immunochemical Test: Which is Best?

Although there is no debate around the effectiveness of colorectal cancer screening in reducing disease burden, there remains a question regarding the most effective and cost-effective screening modality. Current United States guidelines present a panel of options that include the 2 most commonly used modalities, colonoscopy and stool testing with the fecal immunochemical test (FIT). Large-scale comparative effectiveness trials comparing colonoscopy and FIT for colorectal cancer outcomes are underway, but results are not yet available. This review will separately state the "best case" for FIT and colonoscopy as the screening tool of first choice. In addition, the review will examine these modalities from a health economics perspective to provide the reader further context about the relative advantages of these commonly used tests.

Baseline Features and Reasons for Nonparticipation in the Colonoscopy Versus Fecal Immunochemical Test in Reducing Mortality From Colorectal Cancer (CONFIRM) Study, a Colorectal Cancer Screening Trial.

Importance: The Colonoscopy Versus Fecal Immunochemical Test in Reducing Mortality From Colorectal Cancer (CONFIRM) randomized clinical trial sought to recruit 50 000 adults into a study comparing colorectal cancer (CRC) mortality outcomes after randomization to either an annual fecal immunochemical test (FIT) or colonoscopy. Objective: To (1) describe study participant characteristics and (2) examine who declined participation because of a preference for colonoscopy or stool testing (ie, fecal occult blood test [FOBT]/FIT) and assess that preference's association with geographic and temporal factors. Design, Setting, and Participants: This cross-sectional study within CONFIRM, which completed enrollment through 46 Department of Veterans Affairs medical centers between May 22, 2012, and December 1, 2017, with follow-up planned through 2028, comprised veterans aged 50 to 75 years with an average CRC risk and due for screening. Data were analyzed between March 7 and December 5, 2022. Exposure: Case report forms were used to capture enrolled participant data and reasons for declining participation among otherwise eligible individuals. Main Outcomes and Measures: Descriptive statistics were used to characterize the cohort overall and by intervention. Among individuals declining participation, logistic regression was used to compare preference for FOBT/FIT or colonoscopy by recruitment region and year. Results: A total of 50 126 participants were recruited (mean [SD] age, 59.1 [6.9] years; 46 618 [93.0%] male and 3508 [7.0%] female). The cohort was racially and ethnically diverse, with 748 (1.5%) identifying as Asian, 12 021 (24.0%) as Black, 415 (0.8%) as Native American or Alaska Native, 34 629 (69.1%) as White, and 1877 (3.7%) as other race, including multiracial; and 5734 (11.4%) as having Hispanic ethnicity. Of the 11 109 eligible individuals who declined participation (18.0%), 4824 (43.4%) declined due to a stated preference for a specific screening test, with FOBT/FIT being the most preferred method (2820 [58.5%]) vs colonoscopy (1958 [40.6%]; P < .001) or other screening tests (46 [1.0%] P < .001). Preference for FOBT/FIT was strongest in the West (963 of 1472 [65.4%]) and modest elsewhere, ranging from 199 of 371 (53.6%) in the Northeast to 884 of 1543 (57.3%) in the Midwest (P = .001). Adjusting for region, the preference for FOBT/FIT increased by 19% per recruitment year (odds ratio, 1.19; 95% CI, 1.14-1.25). Conclusions and Relevance: In this cross-sectional analysis of veterans choosing nonenrollment in the CONFIRM study, those who declined participation more often preferred FOBT or FIT over colonoscopy. This preference increased over time and was strongest in the western US and may provide insight into trends in CRC screening preferences.

Factors affecting the quality of endodontic treatment in general dental practice in Scotland: a qualitative focus group study.

Introduction The quality of endodontic treatment worldwide is variable despite clear clinical guidelines being available.Aims Identify the factors that affect the quality of endodontic treatment in general dental practice in Scotland and how to overcome the barriers identified.Methods Four online focus group interview sessions were conducted in which a total of 16 participants were recruited, including general dental practitioners, endodontic specialists and educationalists. Topics for facilitated discussion were based on healthcare system theory and included education/training, patient factors, resources and equipment factors; themes were identified via template analysis.Results A number of themes and subthemes affecting the quality of care are reported, including aspects to do with remuneration, time, education, training, support from secondary care and the impact of COVID-19.Conclusion Findings support: increase practical experience for undergraduates; access to postgraduate mentoring and training; development of a managed clinical network to facilitate access to appropriately trained specialists; and increased remuneration to allow sufficient time and adequate equipment to achieve clinical standards.

Glenoid Version Assessment When the CT Field of View Does Not Permit the Friedman Method: The Robertson Method.

Background: To improve spatial resolution, current clinical shoulder cross-sectional imaging studies reduce the field of view of the shoulder, excluding the medial scapula border and preventing glenoid version measurement according to the Friedman method. Purpose: To evaluate a method to accurately and reliably measure glenoid version on cross-sectional shoulder images when the medial scapula border is not included in the field of view, and to establish measurements equivalent to the Friedman method. Study Design: Controlled laboratory study. Methods: Sixty-five scapulae underwent computed tomography (CT) scanning with an optimal shoulder CT-positioning protocol. Glenoid version was measured on CT images of the full scapula using the Friedman method. We developed a measurement method (named the Robertson method) based on the glenoid vault version from partial scapula images, with a correction angle subtracted from the articular-surface-glenoid vault measurement. Comparison with the Friedman method defined the accuracy of the Robertson method. Three observers tested inter- and intraobserver reliability of the Robertson method. Accuracy was statistically evaluated with t tests and reliability with the intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC). Results: The statistical distribution of glenoid version was similar to published data,-0.5° ± 3° [mean ± SD]. The initial measurement using the Robertson method resulted in a more retroverted angle compared with the Friedman method, and a correction angle of 7° was then applied. After this adjustment, the difference between the 2 methods was nonsignificant (0.1° ± 4°; P > .65). Reliability of the Robertson method was excellent, as the interrater ICC was 0.77, the standard error of measurement (SEM) was 1.1° with P < .001. The intrarater ICC ranged between 0.84 and 0.92, the SEM ranged between 0.9° and 1.2° with P < .01. Conclusion: A validated glenoid version measurement method is now available for current clinical shoulder CT protocols that reliably create Friedman-equivalent values. Clinical Relevance: Friedman-equivalent values may be made from common clinical CTs of the shoulder and compared with prior and future Friedman measurements of the scapula.

Diagnosis and Management of Cancer Risk in the Gastrointestinal Hamartomatous Polyposis Syndromes: Recommendations From the US Multi-Society Task Force on Colorectal Cancer.

The gastrointestinal hamartomatous polyposis syndromes are rare, autosomal dominant disorders associated with an increased risk of benign and malignant intestinal and extraintestinal tumors. They include Peutz-Jeghers syndrome, juvenile polyposis syndrome, the PTEN hamartoma tumor syndrome (including Cowden's syndrome and Bannayan-Riley-Ruvalcaba syndrome), and hereditary mixed polyposis syndrome. Diagnoses are based on clinical criteria and, in some cases, confirmed by demonstrating the presence of a germline pathogenic variant. The best understood hamartomatous polyposis syndrome is Peutz-Jeghers syndrome, caused by germline pathogenic variants in the STK11 gene. The management is focused on prevention of bleeding and mechanical obstruction of the small bowel by polyps and surveillance of organs at increased risk for cancer. Juvenile polyposis syndrome is caused by a germline pathogenic variant in either the SMAD4 or BMPR1A genes, with differing clinical courses. Patients with SMAD4 pathogenic variants may have massive gastric polyposis, which can result in gastrointestinal bleeding and/or protein-losing gastropathy. Patients with SMAD4 mutations usually have the simultaneous occurrence of hereditary hemorrhagic telangiectasia (juvenile polyposis syndrome-hereditary hemorrhagic telangiectasia overlap syndrome) that can result in epistaxis, gastrointestinal bleeding from mucocutaneous telangiectasias, and arteriovenous malformations. Germline pathogenic variants in the PTEN gene cause overlapping clinical phenotypes (known as the PTEN hamartoma tumor syndromes), including Cowden's syndrome and related disorders that are associated with an increased risk of gastrointestinal and colonic polyposis, colon cancer, and other extraintestinal manifestations and cancers. Due to the relative rarity of the hamartomatous polyposis syndromes, recommendations for management are based on few studies. This US Multi-Society Task Force on Colorectal Cancer consensus statement summarizes the clinical features, assesses the current literature, and provides guidance for diagnosis, assessment, and management of patients with the hamartomatous polyposis syndromes, with a focus on endoscopic management.

Diagnosis and management of cancer risk in the gastrointestinal hamartomatous polyposis syndromes: recommendations from the U.S. Multi-Society Task Force on Colorectal Cancer.

The gastrointestinal hamartomatous polyposis syndromes are rare, autosomal dominant disorders associated with an increased risk of benign and malignant intestinal and extraintestinal tumors. They include Peutz-Jeghers syndrome, juvenile polyposis syndrome, the PTEN hamartoma tumor syndrome (including Cowden's syndrome and Bannayan-Riley-Ruvalcaba syndrome), and hereditary mixed polyposis syndrome. Diagnoses are based on clinical criteria and, in some cases, confirmed by demonstrating the presence of a germline pathogenic variant. The best understood hamartomatous polyposis syndrome is Peutz-Jeghers syndrome, caused by germline pathogenic variants in the STK11 gene. The management is focused on prevention of bleeding and mechanical obstruction of the small bowel by polyps and surveillance of organs at increased risk for cancer. Juvenile polyposis syndrome is caused by a germline pathogenic variant in either the SMAD4 or BMPR1A genes, with differing clinical courses. Patients with SMAD4 pathogenic variants may have massive gastric polyposis, which can result in gastrointestinal bleeding and/or protein-losing gastropathy. Patients with SMAD4 mutations usually have the simultaneous occurrence of hereditary hemorrhagic telangiectasia (juvenile polyposis syndrome-hereditary hemorrhagic telangiectasia overlap syndrome) that can result in epistaxis, gastrointestinal bleeding from mucocutaneous telangiectasias, and arteriovenous malformations. Germline pathogenic variants in the PTEN gene cause overlapping clinical phenotypes (known as the PTEN hamartoma tumor syndromes), including Cowden's syndrome and related disorders that are associated with an increased risk of gastrointestinal and colonic polyposis, colon cancer, and other extraintestinal manifestations and cancers. Due to the relative rarity of the hamartomatous polyposis syndromes, recommendations for management are based on few studies. This U.S. Multi-Society Task Force on Colorectal Cancer consensus statement summarizes the clinical features, assesses the current literature, and provides guidance for diagnosis, assessment, and management of patients with the hamartomatous polyposis syndromes, with a focus on endoscopic management.

Diagnosis and Management of Cancer Risk in the Gastrointestinal Hamartomatous Polyposis Syndromes: Recommendations From the US Multi-Society Task Force on Colorectal Cancer.

The gastrointestinal hamartomatous polyposis syndromes are rare, autosomal dominant disorders associated with an increased risk of benign and malignant intestinal and extraintestinal tumors. They include Peutz-Jeghers syndrome, juvenile polyposis syndrome, the PTEN hamartoma tumor syndrome (including Cowden's syndrome and Bannayan-Riley-Ruvalcaba syndrome), and hereditary mixed polyposis syndrome. Diagnoses are based on clinical criteria and, in some cases, confirmed by demonstrating the presence of a germline pathogenic variant. The best understood hamartomatous polyposis syndrome is Peutz-Jeghers syndrome, caused by germline pathogenic variants in the STK11 gene. The management is focused on prevention of bleeding and mechanical obstruction of the small bowel by polyps and surveillance of organs at increased risk for cancer. Juvenile polyposis syndrome is caused by a germline pathogenic variant in either the SMAD4 or BMPR1A genes, with differing clinical courses. Patients with SMAD4 pathogenic variants may have massive gastric polyposis, which can result in gastrointestinal bleeding and/or protein-losing gastropathy. Patients with SMAD4 mutations usually have the simultaneous occurrence of hereditary hemorrhagic telangiectasia (juvenile polyposis syndrome-hereditary hemorrhagic telangiectasia overlap syndrome) that can result in epistaxis, gastrointestinal bleeding from mucocutaneous telangiectasias, and arteriovenous malformations. Germline pathogenic variants in the PTEN gene cause overlapping clinical phenotypes (known as the PTEN hamartoma tumor syndromes), including Cowden's syndrome and related disorders that are associated with an increased risk of gastrointestinal and colonic polyposis, colon cancer, and other extraintestinal manifestations and cancers. Due to the relative rarity of the hamartomatous polyposis syndromes, recommendations for management are based on few studies. This U.S Multi-Society Task Force on Colorectal Cancer consensus statement summarizes the clinical features, assesses the current literature, and provides guidance for diagnosis, assessment, and management of patients with the hamartomatous polyposis syndromes, with a focus on endoscopic management.

Tackling antimicrobial resistance in practice: dental students' evaluation of university teaching supplemented by an online course.

Background: Antimicrobial resistance (AMR) presents a global threat to public health. Engaging all healthcare professionals including undergraduates in efforts to tackle AMR is vital. Sharing and spreading good practice in teaching on AMR and antimicrobial stewardship (AMS) is a key ambition in Scotland. In 2020, the University of Glasgow Dental School supplemented teaching with mandatory completion by final year undergraduates of an online education programme on the essential role of dental teams in reducing AMR. Objectives: To evaluate final year dental students' knowledge and experience of utilizing an online international educational, interactive resource to supplement university teaching: Tackling Antibiotic Resistance: What Should Dental Teams Do? Methods: Cross-sectional qualitative evaluation using a self-administered questionnaire with open questions about course content, learning and personal action planning. Data were thematically analysed using NVivo12 Pro software. Results: A total of 88 students completed a questionnaire, which indicated online training had increased their understanding of AMR and AMS from a global perspective and confirmed these topics were an integral part of their undergraduate education programme. Their action plans demonstrated enthusiasm for creating an AMS culture in clinical practice and an understanding of the need for ongoing education of themselves, their colleagues and patients. Conclusions: Education delivery using a variety of media to support teaching and learning in Glasgow Dental School was effective in ensuring that students understand their role in tackling AMR. Students were positive about the addition of an online education programme to supplement university teaching. This approach may be beneficial for other undergraduate dentistry programmes.

Updates on Age to Start and Stop Colorectal Cancer Screening: Recommendations From the U.S. Multi-Society Task Force on Colorectal Cancer.

This document is a focused update to the 2017 colorectal cancer (CRC) screening recommendations from the U.S. Multi-Society Task Force on Colorectal Cancer, which represents the American College of Gastroenterology, the American Gastroenterological Association, and the American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy. This update is restricted to addressing the age to start and stop CRC screening in average-risk individuals and the recommended screening modalities. Although there is no literature demonstrating that CRC screening in individuals under age 50 improves health outcomes such as CRC incidence or CRC-related mortality, sufficient data support the U.S. Multi-Society Task Force to suggest average-risk CRC screening begin at age 45. This recommendation is based on the increasing disease burden among individuals under age 50, emerging data that the prevalence of advanced colorectal neoplasia in individuals ages 45 to 49 approaches rates in individuals 50 to 59, and modeling studies that demonstrate the benefits of screening outweigh the potential harms and costs. For individuals ages 76 to 85, the decision to start or continue screening should be individualized and based on prior screening history, life expectancy, CRC risk, and personal preference. Screening is not recommended after age 85.