Background: Human saliva as a bodily fluid—similar to blood—is utilized for diagnostic purposes. Unlike blood sampling, collecting saliva is non-invasive, inexpensive, and readily accessible. There are no previously published systematic reviews regarding different collection, transportation, preparation, and storage methods for human saliva. Design: This study has been prepared and organized according to the preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses (PRISMA) 2020 guidelines. This systematic review has been registered at PROSPERO (Registration ID: CRD42023415384). The study question according to the PICO format was as followed: Comparison of the performance (C) of different saliva sampling, handling, transportation, and storage techniques and methods (I) assessed for analyzing stimulated or unstimulated human saliva (P and O). An electronic search was executed in Scopus, Google Scholar, and PubMed. Results: Twenty-three descriptive human clinical studies published between 1995 and 2022 were included. Eight categories of salivary features and biomarkers were investigated (i.e., salivary flow rate, total saliva quantity, total protein, cortisol, testosterone, DNA quality and quantity, pH and buffering pH). Twenty-two saliva sampling methods/devices were utilized. Passive drooling, Salivette®, and spitting were the most utilized methods. Sampling times with optimum capabilities for cortisol, iodine, and oral cancer metabolites are suggested to be 7:30 AM to 9:00 AM, 10:30 AM to 11:00 AM, and 14:00 PM to 20:00 PM, respectively. There were 6 storage methods. Centrifuging samples and storing them at -70 °C to -80 °C was the most utilized storage method. For DNA quantity and quality, analyzing samples immediately after collection without centrifuging or storage, outperformed centrifuging samples and storing them at -70 °C to -80 °C. Non-coated Salivette® was the most successful method/device for analyzing salivary flow rate. Conclusion: It is highly suggested that scientists take aid from the reported categorized outcomes, and design their study questions based on the current voids for each method/device.

The occurrence of desquamation, shedding and erythema on marginal and attached gingiva is described as desquamative gingivitis (DG). Various autoimmune/dermatological disorders cause DG.The aim of the present systematic review was to gather information on all possible kinds of treatment for DG, based on specific DG diagnoses.The review was organized following the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses) protocol. An electronic search was conducted in the PubMed, Scopus and Google Scholar databases, up to April 2022. Reviews, letters and studies with less than 2 participants were excluded.Fifteen publications matched the eligibility criteria: 6 case series; 5 clinical trials; 3 randomized clinical trials (RCTs), and 1 cohort study. A total of 330 patients were enrolled, mostly women (81.52%), with an average age of 57.6 years. Diagnostic characteristics corresponded to oral lichen planus (OLP) (n = 249), mucous membrane pemphigoid (MMP) (n = 30), pemphigus vulgaris (PV) (n = 19), plasma cell gingivitis (PCG) (n = 4), erythema multiforme (EM) (n = 1), and non-specified diseases (NSD) (n = 27). Oral lichen planus and MMP were eliminated using oral hygiene instructions with topical clobetasol and/or doxycycline monohydrate. Pemphigus vulgaris, PCG and EM were treated with topical clobetasol.To conclude, each DG case requires personalized treatment, depending on the diagnosis.

Background. Pain is the most prevalent complication after dentoalveolar surgery. Failure in effective pain control could potentially lead to systemic sequels, such as tachycardia, hypertension, improper nutrition, and central sensitization. Pregabalin is a gamma-aminobutyric acid (GABA) analog with inhibitory and analgesic effects on the central nervous system (CNS). Prescribing gabapentinoids as complementary analgesics reduces the consumption of opioid and non-opioid analgesics, and consequently their side effects. Objectives. The main purpose of the present study was to compare the analgesic effects of pregabalin (single-dose 75 mg) vs. ibuprofen (single-dose 400 mg) on patients' pain levels after impacted third mandibular molar surgery. Material and methods. In this randomized, double-blind, split-mouth clinical trial, 24 patients aged 19-34 years volunteered for 2 consecutive (1 month apart) third mandibular molar surgeries (the contra-lateral teeth). The patients were randomly placed into 2 groups: group G1 (n = 12) was prescribed pregabalin (single-dose 75 mg) after the 1st surgery and ibuprofen (single-dose 400 mg) after the 2nd surgery; and group G2 (n = 12) was prescribed the exact opposite of the G1 arrangement. During the first 24 h post-surgery, the patients recorded the number of complementary analgesics they took (single-dose 400 mg ibuprofen) and their level of pain on a visual analog scale (VAS) every 2 h. Results. The average level of pain at 2 h post-surgery (T1) was significantly lower when pregabalin was prescribed (p < 0.05). Most patients needed complementary analgesics at 4 h post-surgery (T2). How-ever, during the first 24 h post-surgery, the patients required significantly more complementary analgesics when ibuprofen was prescribed. Conclusions. In comparison with oral ibuprofen (single-dose 400 mg), oral pregabalin (single-dose 75 mg) had a stronger analgesic effect at 2 h after impacted third mandibular molar surgery (p < 0.05). Pregabalin resulted in a significantly lower consumption of complementary analgesics in the first 24 h post-surgery as compared to ibuprofen.

Key Clinical Message: Systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) can have various manifestations. Although cardiac involvement is very common in SLE patients, a severe acute pericarditis as the first manifestation of SLE in a male patient is relatively rare. A 36‐year‐old male was admitted to our hospital with acute pericarditis, large circumferential fibrinous pericarditis, and major criteria of a high‐risk case of acute pericarditis. After a complete investigation, the underlying disease was revealed to be SLE. All of his symptoms were completely resolved after 6 weeks of treatment with non‐steroidal anti‐inflammatory drugs and corticosteroids with no need for a pericardiocentesis. Patients with acute fibrinous pericarditis should be considered and precisely investigated for multiorgan autoimmune process such as SLE, to avoid unnecessary intervention, and minimize the risk of recurrence and chronicity of the condition.

Rectal prolapse is a serious but not life-threatening condition. It can involve many complications, including quality-of-life changes. Surgical intervention is the standard medical treatment for these patients. In this article, we aim to investigate the quality-of-life outcomes in patients undergoing rectal prolapse surgery, compare different surgical methods, and assess different quality-of-life questionnaires to study these patients. We conducted a systematic literature search on PubMed, Scopus, ScienceDirect, and Embase. A total of 4916 studies were screened, resulting in a final 34 included studies, and 20 were included in the meta-analysis. Data were extracted from studies comparing the quality of life in rectal prolapse patients before and after surgery. Except for one, all included studies reported improved quality-of-life scores. Different instruments were used to examine these patients' quality of life, but SF-36 was implemented most frequently. It comprises eight different domains, and these domains were reported in six different studies. All eight domains showed better outcomes after surgery. The final analysis was based on the surgical approach (perineal or abdominal) and showed no statistically significant superiority of any of the approaches. The high heterogeneity of the included studies. Surgical intervention can improve the quality of life of rectal prolapse patients. However, there is no consensus on which surgical approach achieves the best outcomes. Different instruments are used to evaluate the quality of life in these patients, but there is no specific questionnaire to assess this.