METHODS: Ten subjects (n = 10) who had upper and lower fixed appliances (MBT, 3 M Unitek, 0.022″ × 0.028″) were recruited for this study. Human gingival crevicular fluid (GCF) was obtained using periopaper strips at pre-treatment (T0), 1 month (T1), 3 months (T3), and 6 months (T6) of orthodontic treatment. Periapical radiographs of the upper permanent central incisors were taken at T0 and T6 to measure the amount of root resorption. Identification of changes in PA was performed using liquid chromatography-tandem mass spectrometry. Student's t-test was then performed to determine the significance of the differences in protein abundance before and after orthodontic treatment.
RESULTS: Our findings showed that all ten subjects had mild root resorption, with an average resorption length of 0.56 ± 0.30 mm. A total of 186 proteins were found to be commonly present at T0, T1, T3, and T6. There were significant changes in the abundance of 16 proteins (student's t-test, p ≤ 0.05). The increased PA of S100A9, immunoglobulin J chain, heat shock protein 1A, immunoglobulin heavy variable 4-34 and vitronectin at T1 suggested a response to stress that involved inflammation during the early phase of orthodontic treatment. On the other hand, the increased PA of thymidine phosphorylase at T3 suggested growth promotion and, angiogenic and chemotactic activities.
CONCLUSIONS: The identified proteins can be potential early markers for root resorption based on the increase in their respective PA and predicted roles during the early phase of orthodontic treatment. Non-invasive detection of root resorption using protein markers as early as possible is extremely important as it can aid orthodontists in successful orthodontic treatment.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: This cross-sectional study consisted of 45 subjects who were divided into 3 groups based on the severity of root resorption using radiographs: normal (RO), mild (RM), and severe (RS). DSPP in GCF samples was analyzed using both methods. Questionnaires were distributed to 30 orthodontists to evaluate future user acceptance.
RESULTS: The sensitivity and specificity of the kit were 0.98 and 0.8 respectively. The DSPP concentrations measured using ELISA were the highest in the RS group (6.33 ± 0.85 ng/mL) followed by RM group (3.77 ± 0.36 ng/mL) and the RO group had the lowest concentration (2.23 ± 0.55 ng/mL). The new kit portrayed similar results as the ELISA, the optical density (OD) values were the highest in the RS group (0.62 ± 0.10) followed by RM group (0.33 ± 0.03) and the RO group (0.19 ± 0.06). The differences among all the groups were statistically significant (p
METHODS: Narrative review of the literature, identifying and describing outcome measures that may be used in the evaluation of CRSwNP and for assessment of treatment responses.
RESULTS: In this review, we identify many different outcome measures for CRSwNP that fall under the categories of PROM, objective test, psychophysical test or biomarker. We describe the history of each - including seminal studies - and demonstrate the formal validation, psychometric performance, and limitations of each.
CONCLUSIONS: PROMs, objective tests, psychophysical tests and biomarkers represent different classes of outcome measures that are complementary means of assessing CRSwNP disease status and treatment efficacy. The choice or interpretation of a CRSwNP outcome measure should be undertaken with full knowledge of its formal validation, psychometric performance, and limitations.