Sports Dentistry: A Narrative Review

Sports dentistry originated in 1980s. Most of the sports-related injuries are musculoskeletal. There are various factors which are responsible for the sports injury like the age, gender, growth, body size, type of sports, environmental conditions etc. and sports dentistry includes the prevention and management of it. There are various methods for avoiding oral sports injuries like the use of helmets, mouthguards, facemasks etc. The dentist can play an important role in informing coaches and sportspersons about the importance of preventing orofacial injuries. The aim of this review article is to increase professional awareness towards sports dentistry

The association of APE1 −656T > G and 1349 T > G polymorphisms and cancer risk: a meta-analysis based on 37 case-control studies

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>APE1 (apurinic/apyrimidinic endonuclease 1) is an important DNA repair protein in the base excision repair pathway. Polymorphisms in <it>APE1 </it>have been implicated in susceptibility to cancer; however, results from the published studies remained inconclusive. The objective of this study was to conduct a meta-analysis investigating the association between polymorphisms in <it>APE1 </it>and the risk for cancer.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>The PubMed and Embase databases were searched for case-control studies published up to June, 2011 that investigated <it>APE1 </it>polymorphisms and cancer risk. Odds ratios (ORs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were used to assess the strength of the associations.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>Two polymorphisms (−656 T > G, rs1760944 and 1349 T > G, rs1130409) in 37 case-control studies including 15, 544 cancer cases and 21, 109 controls were analyzed. Overall, variant genotypes (GG and TG/GG) of −656 T > G polymorphism were associated with significantly decreased cancer risk in homozygote comparison (OR = 0.81, 95%CI: 0.67-0.97), dominant model comparison (OR = 0.89, 95%CI: 0.81-0.97) and recessive model comparison (OR = 0.90, 95%CI: 0.82-0.98), whereas the 1349 T > G polymorphism had no effects on overall cancer risk. In the stratified analyses for −656 T > G polymorphism, there was a significantly decreased risk of lung cancer and among Asian populations.</p> <p>Conclusions</p> <p>Although some modest bias could not be eliminated, the meta-analysis suggests that <it>APE1 −</it>656 T > G polymorphism has a possible protective effect on cancer risk particularly among Asian populations whereas 1349 T > G polymorphism does not contribute to the development of cancer.</p