Treatment of obstructive sleep apnea patients using oral appliances: Our experiences

Background/Aim. Obstructive sleep apnea (OSA) is one of the most prevalent sleep disorders. It is recognized as a serious risk factor for car and workplace accidents due to daytime sleepiness, and factor for coronary heart diseases and stroke. The aim of this study was to examine the effectiveness of oral appliances for mandibular advance in treating mild to moderate OSA. Methods. A total of 15 patients were included in this study, all diagnosed with mild or moderate OSA. Oral appliances were custom made for each patient in protrusive position at 50% of maximum mandibular advancement. The patients were given instructions not to sleep on their backs and avoid alcohol consumption during the study as these are the factors that can contribute to symptoms progression. Results. Complete and partial treatment success was achieve in 14 of the patients. Apnea-hypopnea index values were significantly lower (p < 0.05) at the end of a 6-month observation period compared to those at the treatment beginning. A great improvement in symptoms was observed, with daytime sleepiness index values significantly reduced already within the first month of the treatment. Conclusion. Treatment of obstructive sleep apnea with oral appliances has proven successful. Patients were comfortable using oral appliances and were ready to wear them for prolonged period of time. Use of oral appliances is very common in the world and should not be discarded. They are also very comfortable, practical and affordable comparing to continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) apparatus, not to mention surgery. Use of oral appliances is safe and very well tolerated, and ought to be offered to patients with OSA

Pomegranate Peel Extract Differently Modulates Gene Expression in Gingiva-Derived Mesenchymal Stromal Cells under Physiological and Inflammatory Conditions

Pomegranate has shown a favorable effect on gingivitis/periodontitis, but the mechanisms involved are poorly understood. The aim of this study was to test the effect of pomegranate peel extract (PoPEx) on gingiva-derived mesenchymal stromal cells (GMSCs) under physiological and inflammatory conditions. GMSC lines from healthy (H) and periodontitis (P) gingiva (n = 3 of each) were established. The lines were treated with two non-toxic concentrations of PoPEX (low—10; high—40 µg/mL), with or without additional lipopolysaccharide (LPS) stimulation. Twenty-four genes in GMSCs involved in different functions were examined using real-time polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR). PoPEx (mostly at higher concentrations) inhibited the basal expression of IL-6, MCP-1, GRO-α, RANTES, IP-10, HIF-1α, SDF-1, and HGF but increased the expression of IL-8, TLR3, TGF-β, TGF-β/LAP ratio, IDO-1, and IGFB4 genes in H-GMSCs. PoPEx increased IL-6, RANTES, MMP3, and BMP2 but inhibited TLR2 and GRO-α gene expression in P-GMSCs. LPS upregulated genes for proinflammatory cytokines and chemokines, tissue regeneration/repair (MMP3, IGFBP4, HGF), and immunomodulation (IP-10, RANTES, IDO-1, TLR3, COX-2), more strongly in P-GMSCs. PoPEx also potentiated most genes’ expression in LPS-stimulated P-GMSCs, including upregulation of osteoblastic genes (RUNX2, BMP2, COL1A1, and OPG), simultaneously inhibiting cell proliferation. In conclusion, the modulatory effects of PoPEx on gene expression in GMSCs are complex and dependent on applied concentrations, GMSC type, and LPS stimulation. Generally, the effect is more pronounced in inflammation-simulating conditions

Immunomodulatory Activity of Punicalagin, Punicalin, and Ellagic Acid Differs from the Effect of Pomegranate Peel Extract

Background: Our recent study has shown that pomegranate peel extract (PEx) showed significant immunomodulatory activity, which might be caused by ellagitannins. The aim of this work was to test the hypothesis that ellagitannin components act synergistically in the modulation of cytokine production. Methods: Human peripheral blood mononuclear cells (PBMCs) from healthy donors were stimulated with phytohemagglutinin and treated with different concentrations of PEx or punicalagin (PG), punicalin (PN), and ellagic acid (EA), alone or with their combinations. Cytotoxicity, cell proliferation, and cytokine production were determined. Results: Non-cytotoxic concentrations of all compounds significantly inhibited cell proliferation. IC50 values (μg/mL) were: EA (7.56), PG (38.52), PEx (49.05), and PN (69.95). PEx and all ellagitannins inhibited the levels of TNF-α, IL-6, and IL-8, dose-dependently, and their combinations acted synergistically. PEx and all ellagitannins inhibited Th1 and Th17 responses, whereas the lower concentrations of PEx stimulated the production of IL-10, a Treg cytokine, as did lower concentrations of EA. However, neither component of ellagitannins increased Th2 response, as was observed with PEx. Conclusions: The combination of PG, PN, and EA potentiated the anti-inflammatory response without any significant synergistic down-modulatory effect on T-cell cytokines. The increased production of IL-10 observed with PEx could be attributable to EA, but the examined ellagitannins are not associated with the stimulatory effect of PEx on Th2 response