Laser Therapy Effects on Periodontal Status: A Randomized Study Using Gaussian Network Analysis and Structural Equation Modeling Approach.

Background and Objectives: This paper aims to assess the role of laser therapy in periodontitis through an innovative approach involving computational prediction and advanced modeling performed through network analysis (Gaussian graphical models-GGMs) and structural equations (SEM). Materials and Methods: Forty patients, exhibiting periodontal pockets with a minimum depth of 5 mm, were randomly divided into two groups: a control group and a laser group. Four specific indicators were measured for each tooth, namely periodontal pocket depth (PPD), clinical attachment level (CAL), bleeding on probing (BOP), and plaque index (PI), and the mean of six measured values was recorded at five time markers (baseline, 6 months, 1 year, 2 years, and 4 years). The assessment algorithm included enrollment, measurements, and differential non-surgical periodontal treatment, according to the group allocation. Scaling, root planing, and chlorhexidine 1% were conducted for the control group, and scaling, root planing and erbium, chromium:yttrium-scandium-gallium-garnet (Er,CR:YSGG) laser therapy were conducted for the laser group. Results: The main results highlight that the addition of laser treatment to scaling and root planing led to notable clinical improvements, decreasing the PPD values, reducing the BOP scores, and increasing the CAL. Conclusions: Notable relationships between the specific indicators considered were highlighted by both the GGMs and by SEM, thus confirming their suitability as proxies for the success of periodontal treatment.

COVID-19: Main findings after a year and half of unease and the proper scientific progress (Review).

Since the emergence of the disease in late December 2019, numerous studies have been published to date regarding clinical, laboratory and treatment aspects associated with COVID-19. The present study attempts to compare and unify the clinical, para-clinical and therapeutic aspects that have come to light regarding coronavirus disease-19 (COVID 19), mainly in adults. Between April 2020 and September 2021, a comprehensive systematic literature review was performed, which we added to from our own medical experiences. The search was performed on the PubMed, Scopus and Google Scholar databases, comprising studies with analyzable data that were identified alongside studies and documents containing general scientific data. All published studies were written in English, and were from different countries. A 95% confidence interval (CI95) was also calculated for almost each study using the Wilson formula. When compared with preliminary reports between December 2019 and January 2020, the most frequent symptoms were still identified as being fever (68.6%; CI95: 67.5-69.7) and cough (72.7%; CI95: 71.7-73.8). Nevertheless, asymptomatic cases also increased (by 21.4%; CI95: 16.6-27.1). Severe and critical cases accounted for 10.4% (CI95: 9.6-11.1) of all cases. The mean fatality rate was found to be 4% (CI95: 3.6-4.5). The primary co-morbidity found was hypertension (28.9%; CI95: 27-30.8), followed by other underlying cardiovascular diseases (15.4%; CI95: 13.9-16.9) and diabetes (14.5%; CI95: 13.1-16.1). The majority of studies showed lower white blood cell numbers with neutropenia and lymphopenia, and lower platelet levels. The levels of the biomarkers C-reaction protein and erythrocyte sedimentation rate were positive in all studied cases alongside other lab tests, such as examining the D-dimer levels and those of other hepatic, cardiac and renal injury markers. The procalcitonin level was also found to be elevated in many cases, resulting in high usage of antibiotics (83.7%; CI95: 81.2-85.9). Approximately 31.6% (CI95: 29.1-34.1) of the patients required non-invasive ventilation, whereas 9.9% (CI95: 8.1-12.1) of the patients were intubated or placed on extracorporeal membrane oxygenation. The most used antivirals were ribavirin (67.3%; CI95: 63.4-70.9), oseltamivir (52.5%; CI95: 49.4-55.5) and Arbidol™ (34.5%; CI95: 32-37.1). General admittance to the intensive care unit was ~7.2% (CI95: 6.5-7.9) of patients.