Materials and Methods: GCF of 160 individuals (4-15 years of age) was collected by the extracrevicular method. They were categorized into four groups (40 per each group). Group I: subjects with primary dentition (4-5 years of age), Group II: 40 subjects in early transition period (6-8 years), Group III: 40 individuals in the late transition period (9-11 years), and Group IV: 40 individuals with permanent dentition (12-15 years). MIP-lα and MIP-1β levels were determined in the samples of GCF by ELISA method. Data were analyzed by software SPSS Version 20 (IBM SPSS Statistics for Windows, IBM Corp., Armonk, NY: USA).
Results: MIP-1α and MIP-1β were detected in all samples. The highest mean MIP-1α and MIP-1β concentrations in GCF were detected in the early transition period, while the lowest concentrations were seen in primary dentition group. The chemokine levels were higher in girls than in boys in Group III. There was a substantial rise of MIP-1α and MIP-1β levels during eruption.
Conclusions: Since levels of MIP-1α and MIP-1β in GCF are positively associated with tooth eruption, they may perhaps be deemed as novel biomarkers in the eruption process.
OBJECTIVE: Therefore, this research aims to create a flexible mental health care architecture that leverages data-driven methodologies and ensemble machine learning models. The objective is to proficiently structure, process, and present data for positive computing. The adaptive data-driven architecture facilitates customized interventions for diverse mental disorders, fostering positive computing. Consequently, improved mental health care outcomes and enhanced accessibility for individuals with varied mental health conditions are anticipated.
METHOD: Following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines, the researchers conducted a systematic literature review in databases indexed in Web of Science to identify the existing strengths and limitations of software architecture relevant to our adaptive design. The systematic review was registered in PROSPERO (CRD42023444661). Additionally, a mapping process was employed to derive essential paradigms serving as the foundation for the research architectural design. To validate the architecture based on its features, professional experts utilized a Likert scale.
RESULTS: Through the review, the authors identified six fundamental paradigms crucial for designing architecture. Leveraging these paradigms, the authors crafted an adaptive data-driven architecture, subsequently validated by professional experts. The validation resulted in a mean score exceeding four for each evaluated feature, confirming the architecture's effectiveness. To further assess the architecture's practical application, a prototype architecture for predicting pandemic anxiety was developed.
METHODS: Five single maxillary premolar extraction sockets received PRF-CS grafts and five single maxillary premolar sockets received PRF-X grafts. Linear (horizontal and vertical) measurements were accomplished using Cone Beam Computed Tomography (CBCT) images and volumetric changes were assessed using MIMICS software. Soft tissue level changes were measured using Stonecast models. All measurements were recorded at baseline (before extraction) and at 5-months post-extraction.
RESULTS: Significant reduction in vertical and horizontal dimensions were observed in both groups except for distal bone height (DBH = 0.44 ± 0.45 mm, p = 0.09) and palatal bone height (PBH = 0.39 ± 0.34 mm, p = 0.06) in PRF-X group. PRF-CS group demonstrated mean horizontal shrinkage of 1.27 ± 0.82 mm (p = 0.02), when compared with PRF-X group (1.40 ± 0.85 mm, p = 0.02). Vertical resorption for mesial bone height (MBH = 0.56 ± 0.25 mm, p = 0.008), buccal bone height (BBH = 1.62 ± 0.91 mm, p = 0.01) and palatal bone height (PBH = 1.39 ± 0.87 mm, p = 0.02) in PRF-CS group was more than resorption in PRF-X group (MBH = 0.28 ± 0.14 mm, p = 0.01, BBH = 0.63 ± 0.39 mm, p = 0.02 and PBH = 0.39 ± 0.34 mm, p = 0.06). Volumetric bone resorption was significant within both groups (PRF-CS = 168.33 ± 63.68 mm3, p = 0.004; PRF-X = 102.88 ± 32.93 mm3, p = 0.002), though not significant (p = 0.08) when compared between groups. In PRF-X group, the distal soft tissue level (DSH = 1.00 ± 0.50 mm, p = 0.03) demonstrated almost 2 times more reduction when compared with PRF-CS group (DSH = 1.00 ± 1.00 mm, 0.08). The reduction of the buccal soft tissue level was pronounced in PRF-CS group (BSH = 2.00 ± 2.00 mm, p = 0.06) when compared with PRF-X group (BSH = 1.00 ± 1.50 mm, p = 0.05).
CONCLUSIONS: PRF-CS grafted sites showed no significant difference with PRF-X grafted sites in linear and volumetric dimensional changes and might show clinical benefits for socket augmentation. The study is officially registered with ClinicalTrials.gov Registration (NCT03851289).