Orthodontic Bracket Removal Using LASER-Technology—A Short Systematic Literature Review of the Past 30 Years

Background: Since fixed orthodontic treatment is widely spread and one of its inconveniences is bracket removal, as this affects enamel integrity as well as being a cause of discomfort to the patient, studies have searched for the most adequate bracket removal technique, many of them focusing on using laser-technology. Methods: Our review focused on articles published investigating methods of orthodontic bracket removal using laser technology in the last 30 years. Results: 19 relevant studies were taken into consideration after a thorough selection. Different types of laser devices, with specific settings and various testing conditions were tested and the investigators presented their pertinent conclusions. Conclusions: Most studies were performed using ceramic brackets and the best results in terms of prevention of enamel loss, temperature stability for the tooth as well as reduced chair time were obtained with Er:YAG lasers.

In silico ADME/Pharmacokinetic and Target Prediction Studies of Ethambutol as Drug Molecule

Background: The conventional approach for the development of any pharmaceutically active molecule is a time-consuming and costly process because the synthesis is followed by laboratory tests which are then followed by long clinical trials. Hence a faster approach is desired. This article discusses Ethambutol, a frontline anti-tubercular drug that has its properties predicted by the SwissADME tool and the results would be compared with the findings published in the literature. Objective: The main objective is to study the predicted and experimental ADME properties, compare them. As well as study the predicted targets and understand the use of SwissADME for designing other drug molecules. Method: SwissADME, an online tool for ADME prediction was used along with Swiss Target Prediction to understand the targets of the drug. Further, experimental data was obtained from the available scientific literature. Results: We found certain similarities between the predicted and experimental data. However, there were some variations, depending on the testing conditions. The results are interpreted ahead in the article. Conclusion: Ethambutol’s predicted ADME properties are discussed and as per findings from results, it can be concluded that other drug molecules can be similarly predicted using these tools. Also, based on predicted data we can reformulate and prepare some different preparations of the drug.

Commonly used Polymers for Separation Science

Many synthetic and organic (bio-based) polymers have been used for membrane fabrications. In this chapter, we discuss the structure and properties of some commonly used polymers, which have been used for water purification and gas separation applications. To supplement that, we discuss some characterization tools and membrane module testing conditions for performance checks.

60 Use of the Combined Positive Score (CPS) with the companion diagnostic PD-L1 IHC 22C3 pharmDx provides precise evaluation of PD-L1 expression across multiple tumor indications and cutoffs

BackgroundThe Combined Positive Score (CPS)1 algorithm includes tumor and immune cells for determination of Programed Death-Ligand 1 (PD-L1) protein expression in tumor tissues and has been analytically and clinically validated for use with PD-L1 IHC 22C3 pharmDx across multiple indications and cutoffs.2 PD-L1 22C3 IHC pharmDx is a qualitative immunohistochemical assay using anti-PD-L1, Clone 22C3 to detect PD-L1 in formalin-fixed, paraffin-embedded (FFPE) tumor tissues using Autostainer Link 48. PD-L1 IHC 22C3 pharmDx is FDA-approved as an aid in identifying patients for treatment with KEYTRUDA® for six tumor indications at clinically validated CPS diagnostic cutoffs2: gastric or gastroesophageal junction (GC/GEJ) adenocarcinoma (CPS ≥ 1), cervical cancer (CPS ≥ 1), urothelial carcinoma (CPS ≥ 10), head and neck squamous cell carcinoma (HNSCC) (CPS ≥ 1), esophageal squamous cell carcinoma (ESCC) (CPS ≥ 10)3, and triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC) (CPS ≥ 10).MethodsPrecision of PD-L1 IHC 22C3 pharmDx using CPS was assessed for all six indications at the corresponding clinically validated diagnostic cutoffs and at additional exploratory cutoffs under normal, day-to-day testing conditions. Precision testing included Combined Precision (inter-instrument/operator/run (day)), Intra-Run Repeatability, and Observer (inter-/intra-) Scoring Reproducibility studies. FFPE specimens were stained with PD-L1 IHC 22C3 pharmDx and scored using CPS as described in the package insert.2 Four CPS cutoffs were evaluated: CPS ≥ 1 (GC/GEJ, urothelial carcinoma, ESCC, cervical cancer, HNSCC, TNBC), CPS ≥ 10 (GC/GEJ, urothelial carcinoma, ESCC, TNBC), CPS ≥ 20 (HNSCC), and CPS ≥ 50 (HNSCC). Data were analyzed using negative percent agreement (NPA), positive percent agreement (PPA), and overall agreement (OA) with two-sided 95% percentile bootstrap confidence intervals (CIs) based on PD-L1 binary status at the applicable cutoff(s). For each study, data from each CPS cutoff-indication pair were individually analyzed. Meta-analyses were also performed by pooling data from all indications per (i) study and cutoff, and (ii) per study for all tested cutoffs.ResultsNearly all agreement analyses (142/144) for each CPS cutoff-indication pair showed NPA/PPA/OA point estimates (PE) ≥ 90% and CI lower bounds (CILB) ≥ 85%. Meta-analyses showed PE ≥ 90% for NPA/PPA/OA and CILB ≥ 85% per study and cutoff, and per study for all tested cutoffs. Discordant comparisons accounted for <5% of total comparisons performed for each study type.ConclusionsCPS used with PD-L1 IHC 22C3 pharmDx provides precise evaluation of PD-L1 expression across multiple tumor indications and cutoffs under normal, day-to-day testing conditions.AcknowledgementsWe thank the IUSCC Cancer Center at Indiana University School of Medicine, for the use of the Tissue Procurement and Distribution Core, which provided Dako North America, Inc. service.The data and biospecimens used in this project were provided by US Biolab (Gaithersburg, MD, USA), Sofia Bio LLC (New York, NY, USA), Contract Research Ltd (Charlestown, Nevis), and Centre Hospitalier Universitaire (CHU) de Nice (Nice, France) with appropriate ethics approval and through Trans-Hit Biomarkers Inc. Tissue samples were provided by the Cooperative Human Tissue Network which is funded by the National Cancer Institute. Other investigators may have received specimens from the same subjects. Tissue samples supplied by BioIVT (Hicksville, NY, USA).Trial RegistrationN/AReferencesCPS = (# PD-L1 staining cells (tumor cells, lymphotcytes, macrophages))/(Total # viable tumor cells )×100PD-L1 IHC 22C3 pharmDx [Instructions for Use]. Available at: www.agilent.com/library/eifu. Code SK006. Accessed July 2, 2021ESCC was analytically validated as a subtype of esophageal cancer [2].Ethics ApprovalN/AConsentN/A

Impact of Movement Tempo Distribution on Bar Velocity During a Multi-Set Bench Press Exercise

The goal of the present study was to evaluate the effect of contrast tempo movement on bar velocity changes during a multi-set bench press exercise. In randomized and counter-balanced order, participants performed three sets of the bench press exercise at 60%1RM under two testing conditions: E-E where all repetitions were performed with explosive (X/0/X/0) movement tempo; and S-E where the first two repetitions were performed with a slow tempo (5/0/X/0) while the third repetition was performed with explosive movement tempo (slow, slow, explosive). Twelve healthy men volunteered for the study (age = 30 ± 5 years; body mass = 88 ± 10 kg; bench press 1RM = 145 ± 24 kg). The three-way repeated measures ANOVA (tempo × set × repetition) showed statistically significant multi-interaction effect for peak bar velocity (p < 0.01; η2 = 0.23), yet not for mean bar velocity (p = 0.09; η2 = 0.14). The post hoc results for multi-interaction revealed that peak bar velocity in the 3rd repetition was significantly higher for E-E compared to SE only during set 1 (p < 0.001). Therefore, the distribution of movement tempo had a significant impact on peak bar velocity, but not on mean bar velocity. The decrease in peak bar velocity in the 3rd repetition during the S-E condition was observed only in the first set, while such a tendency was not observed in the second and third set.

Comparative Assessment of Deformation Under Plate Bearing Test and CBR Test for Subgrade Soil

A significant variation in the strength and deformation behavior of subgrade soil when tested in the laboratory and in the field. However, correlation of such variables is essential to evaluate the quality of the constructed subgrade. An attempt has been made in the present investigation to assess the deformation of control and stabilized subgrade soil in the laboratory and in the field. California bearing ratio (CBR) test was conducted in the laboratory and the static plate bearing test (PBT) was conducted in the field. Subgrade soil samples were stabilized with 6% lime, 17 % Cationic Emulsion, and combination of lime and emulsion. Similar stabilization was conducted at test sections in the field. The behavior of the control and stabilized soil in deformation under static PBT in the field and CBR in the laboratory was monitored and evaluated. It was noticed that polynomial correlation exists with high coefficient of determination between laboratory and field deformation for stabilized soil. It was observed that the deformation under CBR test decreased after implication of lime by (96 and 88) % for unsoaked and soaked testing conditions respectively. The deformation decreases by (92 and 85.6) % for unsoaked and soaked testing conditions respectively when emulsion was implemented. The deformation decreases by (91 and 88) % for unsoaked and soaked testing conditions respectively when combined stabilization was implemented. However, the deformation under PBT decreases by (75, 56, and 50) % for lime, emulsion, and combined stabilization processes respectively. It was concluded that testing condition (soaked or unsoaked) has no significant impact on the deformation of stabilized soil while it has a significant influence on the deformation of untreated soil under CBR test. On the other hand, the deformation of control soil shows no significant variation among field and laboratory testing in the model, however, the stabilized soil samples exhibit higher influence of field deformation on the polynomial models.