MATERIALS AND METHODS: Root discs (2 mm thickness) were cut apical to CEJ and sectioned into quadrants. HIFU setup with bowl-shaped piezo ceramic transducer submerged in a water tank was used for exposure on each specimen for 15 s, 30 s or 60 s. The specimens of the control group were left without any HIFU exposure. HIFU was generated with a continuous sinusoidal wave of 120Vpp amplitude, 250 KHZ resonance-frequency and highest ultrasonic pressure of ∼10 bar at the focus. Specimens for SEM were viewed, and micro-topography characterization performed, using AFM and Ra parameter and surface area (SA) calculated by specialized SPM surface analysis software. For nano-indentation testing, experiments were carried out using AFM. Macrophage cell isolation and culturing was performed on cementum to receive the HIFU treatment at different time periods. Raman spectroscopy were scanned to create spectra perpendicular to the cementum substrate to analyze generation of standard spectra for Raman intensity ratio of hydroxyapatite normalized to the peaks ν1 960 cm-1. Data was expressed as means ± standard deviations and analyzed by one-way ANOVA in term of Ra, SA, H and Er. Different points for fluorescence intensity ratio were analyzed by Raman using Wilcoxon rank sum test.
RESULTS: HIFU exposure at 60 s removed the smear layer and most of cementum appeared smoothened. AFM characterisation, showed a slight decrease in the irregularity of the surface as exposure time increased. Intact macrophages can be identified in control and all experimental HIFU groups. The level of fluorescence for the control and HIFU 15 and 30 s were low as compared to HIFU 60 s.
CONCLUSION: If HIFU can be successfully implemented, it may be a possible alternative to current methods used in periodontal therapy to achieve smooth root surfaces.
METHODS: To explore differences between these two modalities, we assessed the immune cell infiltrate into EMT6.5 mammary tumors after CRT and MRT.
RESULTS: CRT induced marked increases in tumor-associated macrophages and neutrophils while there were no increases in these populations following MRT. In contrast, there were higher numbers of T cells in the MRT treated tumors. There were also increased levels of CCL2 by immunohistochemistry in tumors subjected to CRT, but not to MRT. Conversely, we found that MRT induced higher levels of pro-inflammatory genes in tumors than CRT.
CONCLUSION: Our data are the first to demonstrate substantial differences in macrophage, neutrophil and T cell numbers in tumors following MRT versus CRT, providing support for the concept that MRT evokes a different immunomodulatory response in tumors compared to CRT.