Molecular imaging of rheumatoid arthritis by radiolabelled monoclonal antibodies: new imaging strategies to guide molecular therapies

The closing of the last century opened a wide variety of approaches for inflammation imaging and treatment of patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA). The introduction of biological therapies for the management of RA started a revolution in the therapeutic armamentarium with the development of several novel monoclonal antibodies (mAbs), which can be murine, chimeric, humanised and fully human antibodies. Monoclonal antibodies specifically bind to their target, which could be adhesion molecules, activation markers, antigens or receptors, to interfere with specific inflammation pathways at the molecular level, leading to immune-modulation of the underlying pathogenic process. These new generation of mAbs can also be radiolabelled by using direct or indirect method, with a variety of nuclides, depending upon the specific diagnostic application. For studying rheumatoid arthritis patients, several monoclonal antibodies and their fragments, including anti-TNF-α, anti-CD20, anti-CD3, anti-CD4 and anti-E-selectin antibody, have been radiolabelled mainly with 99mTc or 111In. Scintigraphy with these radiolabelled antibodies may offer an exciting possibility for the study of RA patients and holds two types of information: (1) it allows better staging of the disease and diagnosis of the state of activity by early detection of inflamed joints that might be difficult to assess; (2) it might provide a possibility to perform ‘evidence-based biological therapy’ of arthritis with a view to assessing whether an antibody will localise in an inflamed joint before using the same unlabelled antibody therapeutically. This might prove particularly important for the selection of patients to be treated since biological therapies can be associated with severe side-effects and are considerably expensive. This article reviews the use of radiolabelled mAbs in the study of RA with particular emphasis on the use of different radiolabelled monoclonal antibodies for therapy decision-making and follow-up

Surface Treatment and Cementation of Lithium Silicate Ceramics Containing ZrO2

SUMMARY Objective To evaluate the effect of different surface treatments on the shear bond strength (SBS) of lithium silicate (LS) and lithium disilicate (LD) ceramics, after thermocycling. Methods and Materials For SBS test, 72 ceramic blocks (18×14×2 mm) were made (24 blocks from each ceramic material): VITA Suprinity (LSS), Celtra Duo (LSC), and Lithium disilicate (LD). The blocks were polished with sandpaper of increasing grit (#280, #400, #800, and #1200) and embedded in chemically activated acrylic resin. Afterwards, they were randomly divided into 12 groups (6 blocks per group) according to: “Ceramic” (LD, LSC, and LSS) and “Surface treatment” (HFS: hydrofluoric acid + silane; MEP: Monobond Etch &amp; Prime/Ivoclar). From each treated surface ceramic block, four dual-curing resin cement cylinders (RelyX U200, 3M Oral Care) were prepared using a Tygon tube (Ø=3 mm and h=2 mm) and light cured for 40 seconds (1000 mW/cm2) (N=288/n=24). All specimens were submitted to thermocycling (10,000 cycles, 5°C and 55°C, 30 seconds) and then to SBS test at a crosshead speed of 1 mm/min using a 50-kgf load cell. Forty-five additional blocks were made for roughness and SEM analysis. Failure mode was also performed. The data (MPa) were statistically analyzed by oneway analysis of variance (ANOVA), Tukey test (5%), and Weibull analysis. The Ra was analyzed by Kruskal–Wallis and Dunn Test (5%). The other variables were analyzed qualitatively. Results ANOVA revealed that “surface treatment” was significant for all ceramic materials (p&amp;lt;0.05). The LD-HFS (18.66±3.49), LSC-HFS (16.81±2.62), and LSS-HFS (16.33±3.08) groups had significantly higher SBS than the LD-MEP (7.00±4.2), LSCMEP (14.12±3.51), and LSS-MEP (13.87±2.52) groups. Complete adhesive failures at the cement–dentin interface were more frequent. Weibull modulus was superior for the LD-HFS (6.22), LSC-HFS (8.8), and LSS-HFS (7.4) groups. Conclusion HF followed by silanization is the most suitable surface treatment for the cementation of LS and LD glass ceramics. </jats:sec