047); no other automated parameter in either group showed significant association with Gleason scores. Irrespective of methodology,
microvessel density was not increased in prostate cancer compared 3-MA concentration to normal prostate. The bias of using vascular hot spots that possibly contributed to previous contradictory results has been mitigated by automated microvessel density quantitation here. Similar microvessel density of low- and high-grade tumors indicate that microvessel density is neither an important nor reliable prognostic marker for prostate cancer. (C) 2013 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.”
“Solis Moreno C, Santos A, Nart J, Levi P, Velasquez A, Sanz Moliner J. Evaluation of root surface microtopography following the use of four instrumentation systems by confocal microscopy and scanning electron microscopy: an in vitro study. J Periodont Res 2012; 47: 608615. (C) 2012 John Wiley & Sons A/S Background and Objective: The ideal instrument for initial periodontal therapy SYN-117 should enable the removal of all extraneous substances from the root surfaces without any iatrogenic effects. Because of that the objective of this study is to analyse
and to compare the root surface roughness after using Gracey curettes, termination diamond burs (40 mu m), a piezo-ceramic ultrasonic scaler and a piezosurgery ultrasonic scaler using confocal microscopy and scanning electron microscopy. Material and Methods: A 2 mm x 2 mm interproximal root area of 20 teeth (n = 40 surfaces) was evaluated S63845 solubility dmso by confocal microscopy (x20 magnification) and scanning electron microscopy (x50 to x1000 magnification). Teeth were randomly assigned to the following four groups: Gracey curettes with 15 vertical strokes; termination
diamond burs (40 mu m) at 3000 r.p.m.; a piezo-ceramic ultrasonic scaler with a power of 11; and a piezosurgery ultrasonic scaler in mode ROOT with a power of two. Results: Confocal microscopy revealed that curettes [mean changes in the value of surface roughness average reduced by 0.11 +/- 0.3], piezo-ceramic ultrasonic scaler (roughness average reduced by 0.47 +/- 0.93) and piezosurgery ultrasonic scaler (roughness average reduced by 0.62 +/- 0.93) left a smoother surface than termination diamond burs (roughness average increased by 0.39 +/- 0.18). Statistically significant differences were observed in roughness (p = 0.005) between piezosurgery and termination diamond burs (p = 0.005). No statistically significant differences were between piezosurgery and Gracey curettes (p = 0.140) and between piezosurgery and piezo-ceramic ultrasonic scalers (p = 0.745). Confocal microscopy and scanning electron microscopy showed that piezosurgery seems to leave the smoothest surface. Surfaces treated with termination burs appear to show more scratches and pits. Conclusion: Three of the four instruments tested for root planing reduced surface roughness; however, the piezosurgery ultrasonic scaler produced the smoothest surface.