Residual antibiofilm effects of various concentrations of double antibiotic paste used during regenerative endodontics after different application times

Objective We investigated the residual antibiofilm effects of different concentrations of double antibiotic paste (DAP) applied on radicular dentin for 1 or 4 weeks. Design Dentin samples were prepared (n = 120), sterilized and pretreated for 1 or 4 weeks with the clinically used concentration of DAP (500 mg/mL), low concentrations of DAP (1, 5 or 50 mg/mL) loaded into a methylcellulose system, calcium hydroxide (Ca(OH)2), or placebo paste. After the assigned treatment time, treatment pastes were rinsed off and the samples were kept independently in phosphate buffered saline for 3 weeks. Pretreated dentin samples were then inoculated with Enterococcus faecalis and bacterial biofilms were allowed to grow for an additional 3 weeks. Biofilms were then retrieved from dentin using biofilm disruption assays, diluted, spiral plated, and quantified. Fisher’s Exact and Wilcoxon rank sum tests were used for statistical comparisons (α=0.05). Results Dentin pretreatment for 4 weeks with 5, 50 or 500 mg/mL of DAP demonstrated significantly higher residual antibiofilm effects and complete eradication of E. faecalis biofilms in comparison to a 1 week pretreatment with similar concentrations. However, dentin pretreated with 1 mg/mL of DAP or Ca(OH)2 did not provide a substantial residual antibiofilm effect regardless of the application time. Conclusions Dentin pretreatment with 5 mg/mL of DAP or higher for 4 weeks induced significantly higher residual antibiofilm effects in comparison to a 1 week pretreatment with the same concentrations

2015 Bethsaida Field Report

The 2015 excavation season at Bethsaida took place during May 28th to July 3rd, 2015. Seventy six faculty, students and volunteers joined this season. The expedition was hosted in Ginosar Village, Kibbutz Ginosar. We are very grateful for the kind and efficient hospitality Ginosar team and members, provides us for more than 20 years

Habitat Assessment of Non-Wadeable Rivers in Michigan

Habitat evaluation of wadeable streams based on accepted protocols provides a rapid and widely used adjunct to biological assessment. However, little effort has been devoted to habitat evaluation in non-wadeable rivers, where it is likely that protocols will differ and field logistics will be more challenging. We developed and tested a non-wadeable habitat index (NWHI) for rivers of Michigan, where non-wadeable rivers were defined as those of order ≥5, drainage area ≥1600 km 2 , mainstem lengths ≥100 km, and mean annual discharge ≥15 m 3 /s. This identified 22 candidate rivers that ranged in length from 103 to 825 km and in drainage area from 1620 to 16,860 km 2 . We measured 171 individual habitat variables over 2-km reaches at 35 locations on 14 rivers during 2000–2002, where mean wetted width was found to range from 32 to 185 m and mean thalweg depth from 0.8 to 8.3 m. We used correlation and principal components analysis to reduce the number of variables, and examined the spatial pattern of retained variables to exclude any that appeared to reflect spatial location rather than reach condition, resulting in 12 variables to be considered in the habitat index. The proposed NWHI included seven variables: riparian width, large woody debris, aquatic vegetation, bottom deposition, bank stability, thalweg substrate, and off-channel habitat. These variables were included because of their statistical association with independently derived measures of human disturbance in the riparian zone and the catchment, and because they are considered important in other habitat protocols or to the ecology of large rivers. Five variables were excluded because they were primarily related to river size rather than anthropogenic disturbance. This index correlated strongly with indices of disturbance based on the riparian (adjusted R 2 = 0.62) and the catchment (adjusted R 2 = 0.50), and distinguished the 35 river reaches into the categories of poor (2), fair (19), good (13), and excellent (1). Habitat variables retained in the NWHI differ from several used in wadeable streams, and place greater emphasis on known characteristic features of larger rivers.Peer Reviewedhttp://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/41269/1/267_2004_Article_141.pd