Caries risk assessment in school children using a reduced Cariogram model without saliva tests

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>To investigate the caries predictive ability of a reduced Cariogram model without salivary tests in schoolchildren.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>The study group consisted of 392 school children, 10-11 years of age, who volunteered after informed consent. A caries risk assessment was made at baseline with aid of the computer-based Cariogram model and expressed as "the chance of avoiding caries" and the children were divided into five risk groups. The caries increment (ΔDMFS) was extracted from the dental records and bitewing radiographs after 2 years. The reduced Cariogram was processed by omitting the variables "salivary mutans streptococci", "secretion rate" and "buffer capacity" one by one and finally all three. Differences between the total and reduced models were expressed as area under the ROC-curve.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>The baseline caries prevalence in the study population was 40% (mean DMFS 0.87 ± 1.35) and the mean 2-year caries increment was 0.51 ± 1.06. Both Cariogram models displayed a statistically relationship with caries development (p < 0.05); more caries was found among those assessed with high risk compared to those with low risk. The combined sensitivity and specificity decreased after exclusion of the salivary tests and a statistically significant reduction of the area under the ROC-curve was displayed compared with the total Cariogram (p < 0.05). Among the salivary variables, omission of the mutans streptococci enumeration impaired the predictive ability the most.</p> <p>Conclusions</p> <p>The accuracy of caries prediction in school children was significantly impaired when the Cariogram model was applied without enumeration of salivary tests.</p

A functional definition to distinguish ponds from lakes and wetlands

Ponds are often identified by their small size and shallow depths, but the lack of a universal evidence-based definition hampers science and weakens legal protection. Here, we compile existing pond definitions, compare ecosystem metrics (e.g., metabolism, nutrient concentrations, and gas fluxes) among ponds, wetlands, and lakes, and propose an evidence-based pond definition. Compiled definitions often mentioned surface area and depth, but were largely qualitative and variable. Government legislation rarely defined ponds, despite commonly using the term. Ponds, as defined in published studies, varied in origin and hydroperiod and were often distinct from lakes and wetlands in water chemistry. We also compared how ecosystem metrics related to three variables often seen in waterbody definitions: waterbody size, maximum depth, and emergent vegetation cover. Most ecosystem metrics (e.g., water chemistry, gas fluxes, and metabolism) exhibited nonlinear relationships with these variables, with average threshold changes at 3.7 ± 1.8 ha (median: 1.5 ha) in surface area, 5.8 ± 2.5 m (median: 5.2 m) in depth, and 13.4 ± 6.3% (median: 8.2%) emergent vegetation cover. We use this evidence and prior definitions to define ponds as waterbodies that are small (< 5 ha), shallow (< 5 m), with < 30% emergent vegetation and we highlight areas for further study near these boundaries. This definition will inform the science, policy, and management of globally abundant and ecologically significant pond ecosystems.Fil: Richardson, David C.. State University of New York at New Paltz; Estados UnidosFil: Holgerson, Meredith A.. Cornell University; Estados UnidosFil: Farragher, Matthew J.. University of Maine; Estados UnidosFil: Hoffman, Kathryn K.. No especifíca;Fil: King, Katelyn B. S.. Michigan State University; Estados UnidosFil: Alfonso, María Belén. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas. Centro Científico Tecnológico Conicet - Bahía Blanca. Instituto Argentino de Oceanografía. Universidad Nacional del Sur. Instituto Argentino de Oceanografía; ArgentinaFil: Andersen, Mikkel R.. No especifíca;Fil: Cheruveil, Kendra Spence. Michigan State University; Estados UnidosFil: Coleman, Kristen A.. University of York; Reino UnidoFil: Farruggia, Mary Jade. University of California at Davis; Estados UnidosFil: Fernandez, Rocio Luz. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas; ArgentinaFil: Hondula, Kelly L.. No especifíca;Fil: López Moreira Mazacotte, Gregorio A.. Leibniz - Institute of Freshwater Ecology and Inland Fisheries; AlemaniaFil: Paul, Katherine. No especifíca;Fil: Peierls, Benjamin L.. No especifíca;Fil: Rabaey, Joseph S.. University of Minnesota; Estados UnidosFil: Sadro, Steven. University of California at Davis; Estados UnidosFil: Sánchez, María Laura. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas. Oficina de Coordinación Administrativa Ciudad Universitaria. Instituto de Ecología, Genética y Evolución de Buenos Aires. Universidad de Buenos Aires. Facultad de Ciencias Exactas y Naturales. Instituto de Ecología, Genética y Evolución de Buenos Aires; ArgentinaFil: Smyth, Robyn L.. No especifíca;Fil: Sweetman, Jon N.. State University of Pennsylvania; Estados Unido

Aquatic Ecosystems are the Largest Source of Methane on Earth

Methane concentrations in the atmosphere have almost tripled since the industrial revolution, contributing 16% of the additional radiative forcing by anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions. Aquatic ecosystems are an important but poorly constrained source of methane (CH4) to the atmosphere. Here, we present the first global methane emission assessment from all major natural, impacted and human-made aquatic ecosystems including streams and rivers, freshwater lakes and reservoirs, aquaculture ponds, estuaries, coastal vegetated wetlands (mangroves, salt-marshes, seagrasses), tidal flats, continental shelves and the open ocean, in comparison to recent estimates from natural wetlands and rice paddies. We find that aquatic systems are the largest source of methane globally with contributions from small lakes and coastal ocean ecosystems higher than previously estimated. We suggest that increased biogenic methane from aquatic ecosystems due to a combined effect of climate-feedbacks and human disturbance, may contribute more than expected to rising methane concentrations in the atmosphere

Aquatic Ecosystems are the Most Uncertain but Potentially Largest Source of Methane on Earth

Atmospheric methane is a potent greenhouse gas that has tripled in concentration since pre-industrial times. The causes of rising methane concentrations are poorly understood given its multiple sources and complex biogeochemistry. Natural and human-made aquatic ecosystems, including wetlands, are potentially the largest single source of methane, but their total emissions relative to other sources have not been assessed. Based on a new synthesis of inventory, remote sensing and modeling efforts, we present a bottom-up estimate of methane emissions from streams and rivers, freshwater lakes and reservoirs, estuaries, coastal wetlands (mangroves, seagrasses, salt-marshes), intertidal flats, aquaculture ponds, continental shelves, along with recently published estimates of global methane emissions from freshwater wetlands, rice paddies, the continental slope and open ocean. Our findings emphasize the high variability of aquatic methane fluxes and a possibly skewed distribution of currently available data, making global estimates sensitive to statistical assumptions. Mean emissions make aquatic ecosystems the largest source of methane globally (53% of total global methane emissions). Median emissions are 42% of the total global methane emissions. We argue that these emissions will likely increase due to urbanization, eutrophication and climate change

Xylitol gummy bear snacks: a school-based randomized clinical trial

Background: Habitual consumption of xylitol reduces mutans streptococci (MS) levels but the effect on Lactobacillus spp. is less clear. Reduction is dependent on daily dose and frequency of consumption. For xylitol to be successfully used in prevention programs to reduce MS and prevent caries, effective xylitol delivery methods must be identified. This study examines the response of MS, specifically S. mutans/sobrinus and Lactobacillus spp., levels to xylitol delivered via gummy bears at optimal exposures. Methods: Children, first to fifth grade (n = 154), from two elementary schools in rural Washington State, USA, were randomized to xylitol 15.6 g/day (X16, n = 53) or 11.7 g/day (X12, n = 49), or maltitol 44.7 g/ day (M45, n = 52). Gummy bear snacks were pre-packaged in unit-doses, labeled with ID numbers, and distributed three times/day during school hours. No snacks were sent home. Plaque was sampled at baseline and six weeks and cultured on modified Mitis Salivarius agar for S. mutans/sobrinus and Rogosa SL agar for Lactobacillus spp. enumeration. Results: There were no differences in S. mutans/sobrinus and Lactobacillus spp. levels in plaque between the groups at baseline. At six weeks, log10 S. mutans/sobrinus levels showed significant reductions for all groups (p = 0.0001): X16 = 1.13 (SD = 1.65); X12 = 0.89 (SD = 1.11); M45 = 0.91 (SD = 1.46). Reductions were not statistically different between groups. Results for Lactobacillus spp. were mixed. Group X16 and M45 showed 0.31 (SD = 2.35), and 0.52 (SD = 2.41) log10 reductions, respectively, while X12 showed a 0.11 (SD = 2.26) log10 increase. These changes were not significant. Post-study discussions with school staff indicated that it is feasible to implement an in-classroom gummy bear snack program. Parents are accepting and children willing to consume gummy bear snacks daily. Conclusion: Reductions in S. mutans/sobrinus levels were observed after six weeks of gummy bear snack consumption containing xylitol at 11.7 or 15.6 g/day or maltitol at 44.7 g/day divided in three exposures. Lactobacillus spp. levels were essentially unchanged in all groups. These results suggest that a xylitol gummy bear snack may be an alternative to xylitol chewing gum for dental caries prevention. Positive results with high dose maltitol limit the validity of xylitol findings. A larger clinical trial is needed to confirm the xylitol results. Trial registration: [ISRCTN63160504].Supported by Grant No. U54DE14254 from the National Institute of Dental and Craniofacial Research, and Grant No. 90YD0188 from the Office of Head Start

The oral microbiome – an update for oral healthcare professionals

For millions of years, our resident microbes have coevolved and coexisted with us in a mostly harmonious symbiotic relationship. We are not distinct entities from our microbiome, but together we form a 'superorganism' or holobiont, with the microbiome playing a significant role in our physiology and health. The mouth houses the second most diverse microbial community in the body, harbouring over 700 species of bacteria that colonise the hard surfaces of teeth and the soft tissues of the oral mucosa. Through recent advances in technology, we have started to unravel the complexities of the oral microbiome and gained new insights into its role during both health and disease. Perturbations of the oral microbiome through modern-day lifestyles can have detrimental consequences for our general and oral health. In dysbiosis, the finely-tuned equilibrium of the oral ecosystem is disrupted, allowing disease-promoting bacteria to manifest and cause conditions such as caries, gingivitis and periodontitis. For practitioners and patients alike, promoting a balanced microbiome is therefore important to effectively maintain or restore oral health. This article aims to give an update on our current knowledge of the oral microbiome in health and disease and to discuss implications for modern-day oral healthcare