Sleep deprivation is highly prevalent in the modern world, possibly reaching epidemic proportions. While multiple theories regarding the roles of sleep exist (inactivity, energy conservation, restoration, brain plasticity and antioxidant), multiple unknowns still remain regarding the proposed antioxidant roles of sleep. The existing experimental evidence is often contradicting, with studies pointing both toward and against the presence of oxidative stress after sleep deprivation. The main goals of this review were to analyze the existing experimental data regarding the relationship between sleep deprivation and oxidative stress, to attempt to further clarify multiple aspects surrounding this relationship and to identify current knowledge gaps. Systematic searches were conducted in three major online databases for experimental studies performed on rat models with oxidative stress measurements, published between 2015 and 2022. A total of 54 studies were included in the review. Most results seem to point to changes in oxidative stress parameters after sleep deprivation, further suggesting an antioxidant role of sleep. Alterations in these parameters were observed in both paradoxical and total sleep deprivation protocols and in multiple rat strains. Furthermore, the effects of sleep deprivation seem to extend beyond the central nervous system, affecting multiple other body sites in the periphery. Sleep recovery seems to be characterized by an increased variability, with the presence of both normalizations in some parameters and long-lasting changes after sleep deprivation. Surprisingly, most studies revealed the presence of a stress response following sleep deprivation. However, the origin and the impact of the stress response during sleep deprivation remain somewhat unclear. While a definitive exclusion of the influence of the sleep deprivation protocol on the stress response is not possible, the available data seem to suggest that the observed stress response may be determined by sleep deprivation itself as opposed to the experimental conditions. Due to this fact, the observed oxidative changes could be attributed directly to sleep deprivation.

Assessing bone density in prospective dental implant sites is crucial both for choosing the implant type and for planning a drilling procedure that will ensure the implant’s primary stability and osseointegration. This study aimed to investigate possible differences between the bone densities of various edentulous sites in the maxilla and mandible. The study was conducted on a group of forty partly edentulous patients who underwent radiological examination by scanning the areas of interest using cone beam computed tomography (CBCT). Hounsfield units (HU) were analyzed using dedicated software. Higher HU were observed at the site of mandibular central incisors compared to the site of maxillary central incisors. The HU values in the mandibular first molars region were higher than those of the maxillary first molars. Buccal vs. lingual or palatal cortical HU values did not differ significantly. Within the limitations of this study, it can be stated that an objective assessment of site-specific bone density before the installation of dental implants may provide valuable clinical information for the selection of implant size and the planning of a patient-specific drilling protocol.

Background and objectives: Health systems all over the world are confronted with an alarming rise of cases in which individuals hesitate, delay, and even refuse vaccination, despite availability of quality vaccine services. In order to mitigate and combat this phenomenon, which are now defined by the World Health Organization (WHO) as vaccine hesitancy (VH), we must first understand the factors that lead to its occurrence in an era characterized by wide access to safe and effective vaccines. To achieve this, we conducted field testing of the Vaccine Hesitancy Scale (VHS), as it was developed by the Strategic Advisory Group of Experts Working Group (SAGE WG), in Cluj-Napoca city, Cluj County, Romania. The scale is designed to quantify VH prevalence in a population, establish which vaccines generate the highest percentage of hesitancy, and allow a qualitative assessment of the individual’s reasons for hesitance. Materials and Methods: We conducted an observational cross-sectional survey, which was comprised of descriptive, analytical, and qualitative elements regarding VH. The necessary sample size was 452 individuals. The VHS and Matrix of Determinants (recommended by SAGE WG) for reasons people gave to justify their hesitance, was interpreted by qualitative thematic analysis (QTA) to ensure the validity and reliability in detecting hesitancy across various cultural settings and permit global comparisons. Results: We found a VH of 30.3% and 11.7% of parents reported refusing to vaccinate their child. Among the VH responders, the varicella vaccine generated 35% hesitancy, measles vaccine 27.7%, Human Papillomavirus (HPV) 24.1%, and mumps vaccine 23.4%, respectively. The QTA values for percent agreement ranged from 91% to 100%. Cohen’s Kappa values ranged from 0.45 to 0.95. Contextual influences identified for VH were “media,” “leaders and lobbies,” and “perception of the pharmaceutical industry.” Individual and group influences for VH were “beliefs,” “knowledge,” and “risk/benefits (perceived).” Vaccine and vaccination specific issues for VH were “risk/benefit (rational)” and “health care practitioners (trustworthiness, competence).” Conclusions: One-third of the investigated population had expressed VH, and a further one-third of these had refused a vaccine for their child. Chicken Pox, Measles, Mumps, Rubella (MMR), and HPV vaccines generated the most hesitation. Negative information from the media was the most frequently evoked reason for VH.