Microbial Characteristics of Peri-Implantitis: A Case-Control Study.

BACKGROUND: The aim of this case-control study is to compare oral microbiologic characteristics of patients with healthy peri-implant conditions and patients with peri-implantitis and to explore the influence of various patient- and implant-related factors on microbiologic characteristics. METHODS: Peri-implant submucosal microbial samples were collected from 85 patients with peri-implantitis (cases) and from 69 patients with only implants with healthy peri-implant conditions (controls). Samples were analyzed using culturing techniques. Multivariable logistic regression was used to explore the association of disease status and various patient- and implant-related factors (sex, patient age, smoking, number of remaining teeth, percentage of teeth with bone loss, implant function time, implant surface, and presence of plaque) with microbiologic characteristics. RESULTS: Peri-implant disease status was significantly associated with the submucosal presence of Porphyromonas gingivalis (Pg), Prevotella intermedia (Pi), Tannerella forsythia (Tf), and Fusobacterium nucleatum (Fn). The association with disease status was most obvious for Pi (odds ratio [OR]: 15.1; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 5.1 to 45.3) and Tf (OR: 13.3; 95% CI: 5.4 to 32.5). The prevalence of Aggregatibacter actinomycetemcomitans and Staphylococcus species was very low. CONCLUSIONS: The periodontal pathogens Pg, Pi, Tf, and Fn are associated with peri-implantitis. A. actinomycetemcomitans and Staphylococcus species do not seem to play an important role in peri-implantitis.

An impressive response to pazopanib in a patient with metastatic endometrial carcinoma.

The incidence of endometrial carcinoma is rising and the patients with distant metastases have a poor prognosis, especially when progression of disease occurs after systemic treatment with hormonal therapy or chemotherapy. Pazopanib, a multi-targeted inhibitor of several oncogenic receptor tyrosine kinases, has been investigated in patients with chemotherapy-resistant endometrial carcinoma or patients for whom chemotherapy is contraindicated. In this report we will describe a spectacular response to pazopanib in a patient with recurrent metastatic endometrial carcinoma.

Remote Ischemic Preconditioning To Reduce Contrast-Induced Nephropathy: A Randomized Controlled Trial.

BACKGROUND: Despite the increasing use of pre- and post-hydration protocols and low osmolar instead of high osmolar iodine containing contrast media, the incidence of contrast induced nephropathy (CIN) is still significant. There is evidence that contrast media cause ischemia reperfusion injury of the renal medulla. Remote ischemic preconditioning (RIPC) is a non-invasive, safe, and low cost method to reduce ischemia reperfusion injury. The aim of this study is to investigate whether RIPC, as an adjunct to standard preventive measures, reduces contrast induced acute kidney injury in patients at risk of CIN. METHODS: The RIPCIN study is a multicenter, single blinded, randomized controlled trial in which 76 patients at risk of CIN received standard hydration combined with RIPC or hydration with sham preconditioning. RIPC was applied by four cycles of 5 min ischemia and 5 min reperfusion of the forearm. The primary outcome measure was the change in serum creatinine from baseline to 48 to 72 hours after contrast administration. RESULTS: With regard to the primary endpoint, no significant effect of RIPC was found. CIN occurred in four patients (2 sham and 2 RIPC). A pre-defined subgroup analysis of patients with a Mehran risk score ≥11, showed a significantly reduced change in serum creatinine from baseline to 48 to 72 hours in patients allocated to the RIPC group (Δ creatinine -3.3 ± 9.8 µmol/L) compared with the sham group (Δ creatinine +17.8 ± 20.1 µmol/L). CONCLUSION: RIPC, as an adjunct to standard preventive measures, does not improve serum creatinine levels after contrast administration in patients at risk of CIN according to the Dutch guideline. However, the present data indicate that RIPC might have beneficial effects in patients at a high or very high risk of CIN (Mehran score ≥ 11). The RIPCIN study is registered at: http://www.controlled-trials.com/ISRCTN76496973.

Implant decontamination with 2% chlorhexidine during surgical peri-implantitis treatment: a randomized, double-blind, controlled trial.

OBJECTIVE: The objective of this randomized, double-blind, controlled trial was to evaluate the clinical, radiographic, and microbiological effects of implant surface decontamination with a 2% chlorhexidine (CHX) solution in comparison with a 0.12% chlorhexidine + 0.05% cetylpyridinium chloride (CPC) solution during resective surgical peri-implantitis treatment. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Forty-four patients (108 implants) with peri-implantitis were treated with resective surgical treatment consisting of bone re-contouring, surface debridement and chemical decontamination, and apically repositioned flap. Patients were randomly allocated to decontamination with a 2% CHX solution (test group) or 0.12% CHX + 0.05% CPC (control group). Clinical and radiographic parameters were recorded before treatment (baseline), and at 3, 6, and 12 months after treatment. Microbiological parameters were recorded during surgery. RESULTS: Multilevel analysis showed no significant differences in bleeding, suppuration, probing pocket depth, and radiographic bone loss between control and test group over three follow-up measurements (3, 6, and 12 months) from baseline. Both decontamination procedures resulted in significant reductions in anaerobic bacterial counts on the implant surface, but no significant difference was noted between control and test group (mean log 3.37 ± 2.34 vs. 3.65 ± 2.87, P = 0.99). CONCLUSIONS: The use of a 2% CHX solution for implant surface decontamination during resective peri-implantitis therapy does not lead to improved clinical, radiographic, or microbiological results compared with a 0.12% CHX + 0.05% CPC solution. Overall, the additional use of CHX reduces anaerobic bacterial load on the implant surface better than mechanical debridement alone, but does not seem to enhance clinical treatment outcomes (ClinicalTrials.gov number NCT01852253).