Effect of Prunus mume extract on human oral keratinocytes (HOK) viability was also tested. Result. In the agar diffusion assay, drug suspension of 2 g/mL was able to inhibit all the bacterial species tested, but not the fungal species. MIC and MBC range of Prunus mume extract against the oral bacteria was 0.15625–0.0003 g/mL and P. gingivalis being the most susceptible species. Prune extract did not cause any detrimental effect on HOK. Conclusion. Prunus mume extract
may be a potential candidate for developing an oral antimicrobial agent to control or prevent dental diseases associated with oral pathogenic bacteria. “
“International Journal of Paediatric Dentistry 2011; 21: 210–216 Objective. To analyse the incidence and the determinants of severe oral mucositis (OM) in young cancer patients treated by standard chemotherapy. Methods. The study was carried Ruxolitinib ic50 out at the Pediatric Hemato-Oncology unit of Children’s Hospital of Rabat. Patients under 16 years of age with malignant disease treated by chemotherapy between January 2001 and December 2006 were recorded. Results. Consecutive patients (n = 970) with malignant disease were studied. The age ranges from 2 months to 16 years (mean, 6.8 ± 4.1 years). OM occurred in 540 (55.6%) patients, and 17.9% of them encountered severe grades. Mean time to
onset of the lesions was 10.5 ± 6.8 (range, 1–22 days) and mean duration was 6.8 ± 3.1 (range, 2–23 days). All chemotherapeutic N-acetylglucosamine-1-phosphate transferase protocols were associated with OM development (range, 20–100%). Patients with severe
OM were more likely to have undifferentiated carcinoma of nasopharyngeal GSK2118436 nmr type (RR = 2.6, 95% IC 1.1–6.1), non-Hodgkin lymphoma (RR = 2.1, 95% CI 1.2–2.4) and acute leukaemia (RR = 1.7, 95% CI 1.5–3.6). Methotrexate-based therapies were also associated with the worsening of OM (RR = 1.7, 95% IC 1.2–2.6). Conclusion. Underlying disease and chemotherapy regimens are the principal risk factors of OM development. This model can help in the identification of patients at risk for adequate preventive and therapeutic measures. “
“Background and aim. This paper reviews three published papers and adds results from a fourth study which aimed to determine which restorative material would be the best alternative(s) to amalgam (AM) in primary teeth. Design. All studies had a practice-based design and were part of the routine treatment of children and adolescents. The clinicians were assigned which materials to use in a randomised matter in the first three studies which lasted for 7–8 years. In the fourth study conducted 4 years after the initial studies, the clinicians were free to select the restorative materials. Results and conclusions. Resin modified glass ionomer (RMGI) and compomer (COM) restorations showed similar longevity compared with AM, whereas conventional GI restorations showed significantly shorter longevity.