OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of preprocedural mouth rinses used in dental clinics to minimise incidence of infection in dental healthcare providers and reduce or neutralise contamination in aerosols.
SEARCH METHODS: We used standard, extensive Cochrane search methods. The latest search date was 4 February 2022.
SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials and excluded laboratory-based studies. Study participants were dental patients undergoing AGPs. Studies compared any preprocedural mouth rinse used to reduce contaminated aerosols versus placebo, no mouth rinse or another mouth rinse. Our primary outcome was incidence of infection of dental healthcare providers and secondary outcomes were reduction in the level of contamination of the dental operatory environment, cost, change in mouth microbiota, adverse events, and acceptability and feasibility of the intervention.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors screened search results, extracted data from included studies, assessed the risk of bias in the studies and judged the certainty of the available evidence. We used mean differences (MDs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) as the effect estimate for continuous outcomes, and random-effects meta-analysis to combine data MAIN RESULTS: We included 17 studies with 830 participants aged 18 to 70 years. We judged three trials at high risk of bias, two at low risk and 12 at unclear risk of bias. None of the studies measured our primary outcome of the incidence of infection in dental healthcare providers. The primary outcome in the studies was reduction in the level of bacterial contamination measured in colony-forming units (CFUs) at distances of less than 2 m (intended to capture larger droplets) and 2 m or more (to capture droplet nuclei from aerosols arising from the participant's oral cavity). It is unclear what size of CFU reduction represents a clinically significant amount. There is low- to very low-certainty evidence that chlorhexidine (CHX) may reduce bacterial contamination, as measured by CFUs, compared with no rinsing or rinsing with water. There were similar results when comparing cetylpyridinium chloride (CPC) with no rinsing and when comparing CPC, essential oils/herbal mouthwashes or boric acid with water. There is very low-certainty evidence that tempered mouth rinses may provide a greater reduction in CFUs than cold mouth rinses. There is low-certainty evidence that CHX may reduce CFUs more than essential oils/herbal mouthwashes. The evidence for other head-to-head comparisons was limited and inconsistent. The studies did not provide any information on costs, change in micro-organisms in the patient's mouth or adverse events such as temporary discolouration, altered taste, allergic reaction or hypersensitivity. The studies did not assess acceptability of the intervention to patients or feasibility of implementation for dentists. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: None of the included studies measured the incidence of infection among dental healthcare providers. The studies measured only reduction in level of bacterial contamination in aerosols. None of the studies evaluated viral or fungal contamination. We have only low to very low certainty for all findings. We are unable to draw conclusions regarding whether there is a role for preprocedural mouth rinses in reducing infection risk or the possible superiority of one preprocedural rinse over another. Studies are needed that measure the effect of rinses on infectious disease risk among dental healthcare providers and on contaminated aerosols at larger distances with standardised outcome measurement.
AIM: To investigate the beneficial effects of fish oil consumption on the progression of insulin resistance and pancreatic islet dysfunction in a rat model of diabetes.
METHODS: Diabetic rats model (n = 30) were divided into five groups and received; 1) NS injection + NS oral (normal control); 2) NS injection + 3 g/kg fish oil (fish oil control); 3) streptozotocin (STZ) injection + NS oral [diabetes control (DC)]; 4) STZ injection + 1 g/kg fish oil (DFO1); and 5) STZ injection + 3 g/kg fish oil (DFO3). Fasting blood insulin was analyzed by commercial rat insulin enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay; meanwhile, the determination of insulin sensitivity was calculated by homeostatic model assessment of insulin resistance (HOMA-IR) and homeostatic model assessment of beta-cell function. A histological study was conducted on pancreas tissue using H and E staining.
RESULTS: Fish oil supplementation reduced hyperglycemia and ameliorated HOMA-IR in STZ-induced animal models indicating that fish oil supplementation improved insulin sensitivity. Furthermore, animals treated with fish oil at a dose of 3 g/kg (DFO3) showed an enhancement in pancreatic islets, which was displayed by less abnormal structures than DC animals. This could imply that the administration of fish oil, especially rich in bioactive omega-3 fatty acids effectively inhibits insulin resistance and restore islet of Langerhans alteration in rats injected with STZ.
CONCLUSION: Thus, the current study suggested that fish oil supplementation could support the treatment of diabetes but should not be considered as an alternative therapy.
RESULT: Pea and rice bran proteins both enhanced emulsion stability. Pea protein enhanced the viscosity of the continuous phase whereas rice bran protein lowered interfacial tension. When applied synergistically, competitive adhesion occurred. Rice bran protein gradually displaced pea protein from the oil droplet surface as its concentration increased, leading to emulsion destabilization due to the displaced pea protein. The use of high-pressure homogenization further enhanced the stability of the emulsion by unfolding protein partially. However, increasing homogenization pressure (>500 Bar) and homogenization cycle (>2 cycles) led to protein aggregation due to excessive exposure of its hydrophobic core. The emulsion formed was resistant to coalescence at 4 °C for 28 days and was stable under high pH and low ionic conditions.
CONCLUSION: The synergistic combination of plant proteins and the effective utilization of co-processing (homogenization) can enhance the functionality of the individual proteins significantly, leading to the formation of a stable emulsion. The use of plant protein mixture as a stabilizer not only improved the emulsion stability but also ensured a plant-based beverage with a complete amino acid profile for the vegan community. © 2024 The Author(s). Journal of the Science of Food and Agriculture published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of Society of Chemical Industry.