Stem cell-like populations and immunoregulatory molecules in periodontal granulation tissue

Background and Objectives: Determine the presence of mesenchymal stem cells (MSCs) in healthy periodontal tissue and periodontal granulation tissue (GT) and explore associations between immuno‐regulatory molecules and selected subgingival microorganisms. Material and Methods: Mesenchymal stem cells were isolated, propagated and characterised by flow cytometry from a region of healthy gingival tissue and inflamed GT of 10 systemically healthy non‐smokers with chronic periodontitis. Tissue levels of immunoregulatory molecules were determined by qPCR and Gingival Crevicular Fluid (GCF) levels by ELISA. Subgingival plaque levels of periodontal pathogens were determined by qPCR Results: Cells with MSC‐properties were isolated from both inflamed GT and healthy gingival (G) tissue. A pro‐inflammatory process predominated in GT which was partly reflected in GCF and putative periodontal pathogens were higher at diseased sites. However, there was no significant difference in surface levels of mesenchymal (CD90, CD73, CD146, CD271, STRO‐1), endothelial (CD105, CD106), hematopoietic (CD34, CD45) and embryonic (SSEA‐4) stem cell markers between MSCs isolated from GT and G tissue. Conclusion: Periodontal lesions, albeit inflamed, retain healing potential as inferred by the presence of MSC‐like cells with similar immunophenotypic characteristics to those found in healthy periodontal tissue. Therefore, there might be merits for healing in preserving sufficient GT in‐situ during periodontal surgery

Biomaterials and regenerative technologies used in bone regeneration in the craniomaxillofacial region: Consensus report of group 2 of the 15th European Workshop on Periodontology on Bone Regeneration

Geistlich Pharma A

Erratum to: Smoking, Porphyromonas gingivalis and the immune response to citrullinated autoantigens before the clinical onset of rheumatoid arthritis in a Southern European nested case–control study

No abstract available

Trading Rights for Responsibility

The newly published compromise text of the Asylum Procedures Regulation (APR) suggests to render border procedures mandatory in some cases, while also permitting first-entry states to derogate from them once their “adequate capacity” is reached. This adaptable approach to the use of border procedures seeks to resolve a long-standing disagreement between central EU countries and first-entry states. While the former consider the obligatory use of border procedures necessary to prevent onwards or  ‘secondary’ movement of asylum-seekers, southern EU states argue that their mandatory use would place a further strain on their resources and overburden their capacities for processing asylum claims. This blogpost first explains the problems with border procedures, reviews their role in increasing responsibility of first-entry states, and explains why the new compromise Draft is unlikely to resolve the disagreement between first-entry states and other Members States.</p

Quadrant root planing versus same-day full-mouth root planing - III. Dynamics of the immune response

The aim of this study was to determine whether same-day full-mouth scaling and root planing (FM-SRP) and quadrant scaling and root planing (Q-SRP) resulted in variations in the systemic humoral immune response dynamics (antibody titres and avidity) during active treatment and 3 and 6 months post-therapy. Material and Methods: Forty patients with chronic periodontitis were recruited into this study. Subjects were randomised into two groups and received either scaling and root planing quadrant by quadrant at 2-weekly intervals (Q-SRP group) or same-day full-mouth scaling and root planing (FM-SRP group). Clinical measurements and serum samples were obtained at baseline and approximately 6 weeks after the last clinical intervention (R1) and 6 months after the initiation of therapy (R2). Furthermore, serum samples were obtained from each patient undergoing therapy (Q-SRP and FM-SRP) at 3 bi-weekly instances so as to determine the short-term effects of each session of scaling and root planing on the dynamics of the humoral immune response. Serum antibody titre was assayed by enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) and antibody avidity was measured by thiocyanate dissociation against five putative periodontal pathogens: Porphyromonas gingivalis; Actinobacillus actinomycetemcomitans; Prevotella intermedia; Treponema denticola and Bacteroides forsythus. Results: Both therapies resulted in similar antibody titre reductions against the majority of the organisms tested and although there was a distinct trend for antibody avidity to increase following therapy, this was not found to be statistically significant, reflecting marked inter-individual variation. In addition, no evidence emerged from this study to support increased antibody titres following the active phases of both treatment approaches due to an inoculation effect. Nevertheless, significant short-term increases in antibody avidity to most test bacteria were noted for both treatment strategies. Conclusion: Both therapies were associated with a reduction in antibody titres and an increase in the binding ability or avidity of antibodies, but there was a marked inter-subject variability and statistical significance was reached for only some of the test bacteria. No significant differences in the humoral antibody dynamics were found between the two treatment approaches

Quadrant root planing versus same-day full-mouth root planing - I. Clinical findings

OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to test the hypothesis that same-day full-mouth scaling and root planing (FM-SRP) resulted in greater clinical improvement compared to quadrant scaling and root planing (Q-SRP) in chronic periodontitis patients over a period of 6 months. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Forty patients were recruited into this study. Subjects were randomised into two groups. The FM-SRP group received full-mouth scaling and root planing completed within the same day, while the Q-SRP group received quadrant root planing at 2-weekly intervals over four consecutive sessions. Whole-mouth clinical measurements were recorded with a manual periodontal probe at baseline (BAS) and at reassessment 1 (R1) (approximately 6 weeks after the completion of therapy), and at reassessment 2 (R2) (6 months after the initiation of therapy). Selected site analyses were performed on the deepest site in each quadrant before and after therapy (R1 and R2) and clinical indices were recorded with an electronic pressure sensitive probe. In addition, during the active phase of treatment clinical data were collected at 2-weekly intervals from the remaining untreated quadrants in the Q-SRP group only. RESULTS: Both therapies resulted in significant improvements in all clinical indices both at R1 and R2. A continuous clinical improvement was seen for both treatment groups during the experimental period, which reached peak levels at 6 months (DeltaPD=1.8 mm, DeltaCAL=1.1 mm, p&#60;0.001; PD: pocket depth; CAL: clinical attachment level). The selected-site analysis revealed no significant differences in any clinical index between the two treatment groups at R2 (DeltaPD=2.8 mm, DeltaRAL=1.1 mm; RAL: relative attachment level). At the selected sites, the analysis of the deep pockets (&#60;7 mm) showed a significantly greater gain in RAL for the FM-SRP group compared to the Q-SRP group at R2 (p&#60;0.05). The results of this analysis however, should be interpreted with care due to the small number of deep pockets. Data from the Q-SRP group provided an insight into how treated and untreated quadrants responded during the initiation of plaque control measures. There were significant reductions in PD, suppuration (SUP), modified gingival index (MGI) and plaque index (PI) in the remaining untreated quadrants in the Q-SRP group during the initial phase of treatment (p&#60;0.05), while minimum changes in RALs and bleeding on probing (BOP) occurred. Nevertheless, the improvement in PD was clearly inferior to that seen after scaling and root planing. CONCLUSION: Following both therapeutic modalities, there were marked clinical improvements at both R1 and R2 (6 months) from baseline. The current study, in contrast to previous findings, failed to show that FM-SRP is a more efficacious periodontal treatment modality compared to Q-SRP. However, both modalities are efficacious and the clinician should select the treatment modality based on practical considerations related to patient preference and clinical workload