Is there a role for reconstructive techniques to prevent periodontal defects after third molar surgery?

PURPOSE: Among patients at high risk for second molar (M2) periodontal defects after third molar (M3) removal, does active treatment at the time of extraction, when compared with no treatment, alter the risk of postextraction M2 periodontal defects? MATERIALS AND METHODS: We used a prospective cohort study design and a sample composed of subjects at high risk for developing M2 periodontal defects after M3 extraction, that is, age > or = 26 years, pre-existing periodontal defects (attachment level [AL] > or = 3 mm), and mesioangular or horizontal M3 impaction. The predictor variable was treatment status of the M3 extraction site. The M3 extraction sites were reconstructed with demineralized bone powder (DBP), bioresorbable guided tissue regeneration (GTR) therapy, or no treatment. The outcome variable was ALs measured at the M2 distobuccal line angle preoperatively and 26 weeks after extraction. Appropriate univariate, bivariate, and multivariate statistics were computed, and statistical significance was set at a value P < .05. RESULTS: The cohort was composed of 12 subjects contributing 18 high-risk M3s. Twenty-six weeks after M3 removal, the ALs for GTR-treated (3.0 +/- 1.2 mm), DBP-treated (1.4 +/- 0.5 mm), and control (3.8 +/- 0.9) M3 sites were statistically significantly different ( P = .002). Tukey post-hoc comparisons revealed a statistically significant difference between control and DBP ALs ( P = .001) and GTR-treated and DBP-treated ALs ( P = .037). There was no statistically significant difference in ALs between control and GTR-treated M3s ( P = .35). CONCLUSIONS: The results of this study suggest that subjects at high risk for developing M2 periodontal defects after M3 removal may benefit from the use of DBP placed at the time of M3 extraction to enhance periodontal healing.     

The red eye

A red eye is a cardinal sign of ocular inflammation. Most cases are benign and can be managed by the primary care provider. The key is recognizing cases requiring ophthalmological consultation by differentiating between ciliary and conjunctival injection. Ciliary injection indicates inflammation of the cornea, iris, or ciliary body, whereas conjunctival injection mainly affects the posterior conjunctival blood vessels. The author has stated that he does not have a significant financial interest or other relationship with any product manufacturer or provider of services discussed in this article. The author also does not discuss the use of off-label products, which includes unlabeled, unapproved, or investigative products or devices.     

Further evidence of dopamine transporter dysregulation in ADHD: a controlled PET imaging study using altropane.

BACKGROUND: The dopamine transporter (DAT) is known to be a key regulator of dopamine, and recent studies of genetics, treatment, and imaging have highlighted the role of DAT in attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD). The findings of in vivo neuroimaging of DAT in ADHD have been somewhat discrepant, however. METHOD: Dopamine transporter binding was measured using a highly selective ligand (C-11 altropane) and positron emission tomography (PET). The sample consisted of 47 well-characterized, treatment-na?ve, nonsmoking, non-comorbid adults with and without ADHD. Additionally, control subjects had few symptoms of ADHD. RESULTS: Results showed significantly increased DAT binding in the right caudate in adults with ADHD compared with matched control subjects without this disorder. CONCLUSIONS: These results confirm abnormal DAT binding in the striatum of adults with ADHD and provide further support that dysregulation of DAT may be an important component of the pathophysiology of ADHD.     

Noninvasive tests for arterial structure, function, and compliance: do they identify risk or diagnose disease?

BACKGROUND: Brachial artery reactivity (BAR), carotid intima-media thickness (IMT), and applanation tonometry for evaluation of total arterial compliance may provide information about preclinical vascular disease. We sought to determine whether these tests could be used to identify patients with coronary artery disease (CAD) without being influenced by their ability to identify those at risk for CAD developing. METHODS: We studied 100 patients and compared 3 groups: 35 patients with known CAD; 34 patients with symptoms and risk factors but no CAD identified by stress echocardiography (risk group); and 31 control subjects. BAR and IMT were measured using standard methods, and total arterial compliance was calculated by the pulse-pressure method from simultaneous radial applanation tonometry and pulsed wave Doppler of the left ventricular outflow. Ischemia was identified as a new or worsening wall-motion abnormality induced by stress. RESULTS: In a comparison between the control subjects and patients either at risk for developing CAD or with CAD, the predictors of risk for CAD were: age (P =.01); smoking history (P =.002); hypercholesterolemia (P =.002); and hypertension (P =.004) (model R = 0.82; P =.0001). The independent predictors of CAD were: IMT (P =.001); BAR (P =.04); sex (P =.005); and hypertension (P =.005) (model R = 0.80; P =.0001). CONCLUSION: IMT, BAR, and traditional cardiovascular risk factors appear to identify patients at risk for CAD developing. However, only IMT was significantly different between patients at risk for developing CAD and those with overt CAD.