Comparative assessment of fluorosed and nonfluorosed fibroblast attachment on fluorosed and nonfluorosed teeth after scaling and root planning and ethylenediaminetetraacetic acid root biomodification

Background and Objectives: Fluorosis causes mineralization changes in the tooth and can lead to morphological alterations of fibroblasts. To evaluate the effect of fluorosis on periodontal healing, the initial step while healing such as, fibroblast attachment onto the root surface requires to be evaluated on the fluorosed and nonfluorosed tooth using nonfluorosed as well as fluorosed fibroblasts originated from the subjects influenced by high-water fluoride. Hence, the objective of the current study was to study and compare the attachment of nonfluorosed and fluorosed fibroblasts on the fluorosed and nonfluorosed root fragments. Materials and Methods: A total of 112 fluorosed and nonfluorosed, periodontally healthy and diseased tooth roots were obtained and allotted to eight groups : f0 luorosed healthy (FH) and non-FH (NFH) controls, fluorosed diseased (FD) and non-FD (NFD) controls, fluorosed and nonfluorosed teeth treated with scaling and root planning (SRP) (FD SRP and NFD SRP) and similar groups treated with SRP and ethylenediaminetetraacetic acid (EDTA) (FD SRP + EDTA and NFD SRP + EDTA) burnishing treatment with 24% EDTA gel for 2 min. After the respective treatment half of the root fragments in each group were incubated in the human periodontal ligament fibroblast cells obtained and cultured from freshly extracted FH and NFH human premolar tooth root. The nonfluorosed fibroblasts are elongated, flat cells thus they show increased attachment to root the surface. Results: When comparison was carried out between the attachment of fluorosed and nonfluorosed fibroblasts on NFD groups treated with scaling and EDTA, significant results were obtained with increased attachment seen on the group incubated with nonfluorosed fibroblasts (P = 0.029). While on comparison between the attachment of fluorosed and nonfluorosed fibroblasts on NFH group, NFD group treated with SRP and NFD group, no significant results were obtained (P > 0.05). On comparison between the attachment of fluorosed and nonfluorosed fibroblasts on FD group treated with SRP, highly significant results were obtained with increased attachment seen in the group incubated with nonfluorosed fibroblasts (P = 0.001). While the comparison of attachment of fluorosed and nonfluorosed fibroblasts on FH group, FD group treated with SRP + EDTA and FD group revealed no significant results (P > 0.05). Interpretation and Conclusion: SRP proves yet to be a standard requirement for fibroblast attachment to occur both in fluorosed and nonfluorosed teeth. Although, there is no significant difference in attachment between SRP and SRP + EDTA among fluorosed teeth, EDTA does not seem to be a promising agent for root biomodification in fluorosed teeth in given concentration and time of treatment

Health-status outcomes with invasive or conservative care in coronary disease

BACKGROUND In the ISCHEMIA trial, an invasive strategy with angiographic assessment and revascularization did not reduce clinical events among patients with stable ischemic heart disease and moderate or severe ischemia. A secondary objective of the trial was to assess angina-related health status among these patients. METHODS We assessed angina-related symptoms, function, and quality of life with the Seattle Angina Questionnaire (SAQ) at randomization, at months 1.5, 3, and 6, and every 6 months thereafter in participants who had been randomly assigned to an invasive treatment strategy (2295 participants) or a conservative strategy (2322). Mixed-effects cumulative probability models within a Bayesian framework were used to estimate differences between the treatment groups. The primary outcome of this health-status analysis was the SAQ summary score (scores range from 0 to 100, with higher scores indicating better health status). All analyses were performed in the overall population and according to baseline angina frequency. RESULTS At baseline, 35% of patients reported having no angina in the previous month. SAQ summary scores increased in both treatment groups, with increases at 3, 12, and 36 months that were 4.1 points (95% credible interval, 3.2 to 5.0), 4.2 points (95% credible interval, 3.3 to 5.1), and 2.9 points (95% credible interval, 2.2 to 3.7) higher with the invasive strategy than with the conservative strategy. Differences were larger among participants who had more frequent angina at baseline (8.5 vs. 0.1 points at 3 months and 5.3 vs. 1.2 points at 36 months among participants with daily or weekly angina as compared with no angina). CONCLUSIONS In the overall trial population with moderate or severe ischemia, which included 35% of participants without angina at baseline, patients randomly assigned to the invasive strategy had greater improvement in angina-related health status than those assigned to the conservative strategy. The modest mean differences favoring the invasive strategy in the overall group reflected minimal differences among asymptomatic patients and larger differences among patients who had had angina at baseline

Initial invasive or conservative strategy for stable coronary disease

BACKGROUND Among patients with stable coronary disease and moderate or severe ischemia, whether clinical outcomes are better in those who receive an invasive intervention plus medical therapy than in those who receive medical therapy alone is uncertain. METHODS We randomly assigned 5179 patients with moderate or severe ischemia to an initial invasive strategy (angiography and revascularization when feasible) and medical therapy or to an initial conservative strategy of medical therapy alone and angiography if medical therapy failed. The primary outcome was a composite of death from cardiovascular causes, myocardial infarction, or hospitalization for unstable angina, heart failure, or resuscitated cardiac arrest. A key secondary outcome was death from cardiovascular causes or myocardial infarction. RESULTS Over a median of 3.2 years, 318 primary outcome events occurred in the invasive-strategy group and 352 occurred in the conservative-strategy group. At 6 months, the cumulative event rate was 5.3% in the invasive-strategy group and 3.4% in the conservative-strategy group (difference, 1.9 percentage points; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.8 to 3.0); at 5 years, the cumulative event rate was 16.4% and 18.2%, respectively (difference, 121.8 percentage points; 95% CI, 124.7 to 1.0). Results were similar with respect to the key secondary outcome. The incidence of the primary outcome was sensitive to the definition of myocardial infarction; a secondary analysis yielded more procedural myocardial infarctions of uncertain clinical importance. There were 145 deaths in the invasive-strategy group and 144 deaths in the conservative-strategy group (hazard ratio, 1.05; 95% CI, 0.83 to 1.32). CONCLUSIONS Among patients with stable coronary disease and moderate or severe ischemia, we did not find evidence that an initial invasive strategy, as compared with an initial conservative strategy, reduced the risk of ischemic cardiovascular events or death from any cause over a median of 3.2 years. The trial findings were sensitive to the definition of myocardial infarction that was used