Objective To evaluate the role of distortion product otoacoustic emissions (DPOAE) testing in evaluating early hearing loss among noise-exposed workers. Methods A total of 174 noise-exposed workers in a metal shipbuilding enterprise were selected as the research subjects by the convenience sampling method. Pure tone audiometry (PTA), DPOAE and the level of noise exposure were conducted on the workers. The rank correlation analysis was used to analyze the correlation between DPOAE amplitude and PTA threshold. The multilevel model was used to analyze the effects of gender, age, noise exposure intensity, cumulative noise exposure (CNE), hearing loss classification and PTA threshold on DPOAE results. Results At the frequencies of 0.50, 1.00, 2.00, 3.00, 4.00, 6.00 and 8.00 kHz, the DPOAE amplitude was negatively correlated with the PTA threshold (rank correlation coefficients were -0.12, -0.48, -0.47, -0.18, -0.23, -0.44, -0.19, respectively, all P<0.01). At the most frequencies, DPOAE amplitude was negatively correlated with age and CNE (all P<0.05). The results of multilevel model analysis showed that there were significant differences in DPOAE amplitudes at certain frequencies across gender, age, noise intensity, CNE, and hearing loss classification (all P<0.05). Significant differences in DPOAE responses were found among different CNE and hearing loss groups (all P<0.01). Conclusion DPOAE testing can objectively reflect the hearing status of noise-exposed workers and could be considered for inclusion in routine hearing monitoring to facilitate early detection of noise-induced hearing loss.

Risk assessment models for periodontal disease provide dentists with a precise and consolidated evaluation of the prognosis of periodontitis, enabling the formulation of personalized treatment plans. Periodontal risk assessment systems have been widely applied in clinical practice and research. The application fields of periodontal risk assessment systems vary based on the distinctions between clinical periodontal parameters and risk factors. The assessment models listed below are commonly used in clinical practice, including the periodontal risk calculator (PRC), which is an individual-based periodontal risk assessment tool that collects both periodontal and systemic information for prediction; the periodontal assessment tool (PAT), which allows for quantitative differentiation of stages of periodontal disease; the periodontal risk assessment (PRA) and modified periodontal risk assessment (mPRA), which are easy to use; and the classification and regression trees (CART), which assess the periodontal prognosis based on a single affected tooth. Additionally, there are orthodontic-periodontal combined risk assessment systems and implant periapical risk assessment systems tailored for patients needing multidisciplinary treatment. This review focuses on the current application status of periodontal risk assessment systems.

Objective:To detect the level of the circulating cell-free mitochondrial DNA (ccf-mtDNA) in plasma of children with primary carnitine deficiency (PCD)-associated cardiomyopathy and evaluate its clinical significance.Methods:In this prospective case-control study, peripheral blood samples were collected from 7 PCD patients with cardiomyopathy (PCD group), 16 dilated cardiomyopathy (DCM) patients (DCM group), and 50 healthy children (healthy control group) in the Pediatric Cardiovascular Department Ward of First Hospital of Jilin University from July 2017 to June 2022.The ccf-mtDNA levels were measured and compared between groups by the real-time fluorescence quantitative polymerase chain reaction.The correlations between plasma ccf-mtDNA level and blood free carnitine level and cardiac function in the PCD group were analyzed.The changes in the ccf-mtDNA level were monitored after L-carnitine treatment in the PCD group.The Kruskal-Wallis test was used for comparison among the three groups.The Mann-Whitney test was used for comparison between the PCD group and the control group.Changes before and after treatment in the PCD group were analyzed using the paired Wilcoxon rank sum test.The correlation between variables was evaluated by Logistic regression.Results:The plasma ccf-mtDNA levels in the PCD and DCM groups were 3.69×10 6 (1.09×10 6-7.26×10 6) copies/L and 0.99×10 6 (0.25×10 6-4.10×10 6) copies/L, respectively, which were significantly higher than that in the healthy control group[0.09×10 6 (0.01×10 6-0.35×10 6) copies/L]( H=33.34, 24.69; all P<0.01). Besides, the plasma ccf-mtDNA level in the PCD group was higher than that in the DCM group ( H=6.31, P<0.05). In the PCD group, the plasma ccf-mtDNA level was negatively correlated with the blood free carnitine level and left ventricular ejection fraction ( r=-0.85, -0.82, all P<0.05) and positively correlated with the modified Ross score and the N-terminal pro B type natriuretic peptide level ( r=0.81, 0.83, all P<0.05) before L-carnitine treatment.After treatment, the plasma ccf-mtDNA level decreased, and the blood free carnitine level and cardiac function recovered in the PCD group.The plasma ccf-mtDNA level declined sharply from the 3 rd month[0.96×10 6(0.50×10 6-2.27×10 6) copies/L] after treatment ( Z=2.24, P<0.05) and got to 0.27×10 6 (0.18×10 6-0.76×10 6) copies/L, 0.29×10 6(0.19×10 6-0.78×10 6) copies/L, and 0.16×10 6(0.10×10 6-1.06×10 6) copies/L at the 6 th, 9 th, and 12 th months after treatment, respectively, with no statistically significant difference compared to the healthy control group[0.09×10 6(0.01×10 6-0.35×10 6) copies/L] ( Z=1.23, 1.09, 2.12; all P>0.05). Conclusions:Plasma ccf-mtDNA may act as one pathogenic factor of cardiomyopathy in PCD, and monitoring its level is clinically important for heart condition assessment in PCD.

Objective To evaluate the value of miniprobe endoscopic ultrasound(EUS)in guiding endoscopic treatment of small-diameter(maximum diameter less than 1 cm)and low-grade(G1 grade)rectum neuroendocrine neoplasm(R-NEN),and to provide evidence and clues for its clinical application and further research.Methods The clinical data of 85 cases of low-grade(G1 grade)R-NEN with a maximum diameter of less than 1 cm who underwent endoscopic treatment in our center from January 2014 to December 2020 were retrospectively analyzed.The patients were divided into the EUS group(37 cases)and control group(48 cases)according to whether EUS was performed before endoscopic treatment.The positive rate of incision margin,the incidence of complications,the recurrence rate,the hospital stay,the cost of hospitalization and endoscopic therapy were compared between the two groups.Results The positive rate of incision margin in the EUS group was significantly lower than that in control group(P<0.05).There was no significant difference in the incidence of complications,tumor recurrence rate,hospital stay or hospital costs between the two groups(P>0.05).There was statistically significant difference in the endoscopic therapy between the two groups(P<0.05).Conclusion Evaluating the lesion depth of small-diameter and low-grade(G1 grade)R-NEN before surgery by miniprobe EUS and selecting endoscopic surgery according to its results of can significantly reduce the residual risk of resection margin tumors.

Risk assessment models for periodontal disease provide dentists with a precise and consolidated evalua-tion of the prognosis of periodontitis,enabling the formulation of personalized treatment plans.Periodontal risk assess-ment systems have been widely applied in clinical practice and research.The application fields of periodontal risk assessment systems vary based on the distinctions between clinical periodontal parameters and risk factors.The assess-ment models listed below are commonly used in clinical practice,including the periodontal risk calculator(PRC),which is an individual-based periodontal risk assessment tool that collects both periodontal and systemic information for pre-diction;the periodontal assessment tool(PAT),which allows for quantitative differentiation of stages of periodontal dis-ease;the periodontal risk assessment(PRA)and modified periodontal risk assessment(mPRA),which are easy to use;and the classification and regression trees(CART),which assess the periodontal prognosis based on a single affected tooth.Additionally,there are orthodontic-periodontal combined risk assessment systems and implant periapical risk as-sessment systems tailored for patients needing multidisciplinary treatment.This review focuses on the current applica-tion status of periodontal risk assessment systems.

Risk assessment models for periodontal disease provide dentists with a precise and consolidated evalua-tion of the prognosis of periodontitis,enabling the formulation of personalized treatment plans.Periodontal risk assess-ment systems have been widely applied in clinical practice and research.The application fields of periodontal risk assessment systems vary based on the distinctions between clinical periodontal parameters and risk factors.The assess-ment models listed below are commonly used in clinical practice,including the periodontal risk calculator(PRC),which is an individual-based periodontal risk assessment tool that collects both periodontal and systemic information for pre-diction;the periodontal assessment tool(PAT),which allows for quantitative differentiation of stages of periodontal dis-ease;the periodontal risk assessment(PRA)and modified periodontal risk assessment(mPRA),which are easy to use;and the classification and regression trees(CART),which assess the periodontal prognosis based on a single affected tooth.Additionally,there are orthodontic-periodontal combined risk assessment systems and implant periapical risk as-sessment systems tailored for patients needing multidisciplinary treatment.This review focuses on the current applica-tion status of periodontal risk assessment systems.

Risk assessment models for periodontal disease provide dentists with a precise and consolidated evalua-tion of the prognosis of periodontitis,enabling the formulation of personalized treatment plans.Periodontal risk assess-ment systems have been widely applied in clinical practice and research.The application fields of periodontal risk assessment systems vary based on the distinctions between clinical periodontal parameters and risk factors.The assess-ment models listed below are commonly used in clinical practice,including the periodontal risk calculator(PRC),which is an individual-based periodontal risk assessment tool that collects both periodontal and systemic information for pre-diction;the periodontal assessment tool(PAT),which allows for quantitative differentiation of stages of periodontal dis-ease;the periodontal risk assessment(PRA)and modified periodontal risk assessment(mPRA),which are easy to use;and the classification and regression trees(CART),which assess the periodontal prognosis based on a single affected tooth.Additionally,there are orthodontic-periodontal combined risk assessment systems and implant periapical risk as-sessment systems tailored for patients needing multidisciplinary treatment.This review focuses on the current applica-tion status of periodontal risk assessment systems.

Risk assessment models for periodontal disease provide dentists with a precise and consolidated evalua-tion of the prognosis of periodontitis,enabling the formulation of personalized treatment plans.Periodontal risk assess-ment systems have been widely applied in clinical practice and research.The application fields of periodontal risk assessment systems vary based on the distinctions between clinical periodontal parameters and risk factors.The assess-ment models listed below are commonly used in clinical practice,including the periodontal risk calculator(PRC),which is an individual-based periodontal risk assessment tool that collects both periodontal and systemic information for pre-diction;the periodontal assessment tool(PAT),which allows for quantitative differentiation of stages of periodontal dis-ease;the periodontal risk assessment(PRA)and modified periodontal risk assessment(mPRA),which are easy to use;and the classification and regression trees(CART),which assess the periodontal prognosis based on a single affected tooth.Additionally,there are orthodontic-periodontal combined risk assessment systems and implant periapical risk as-sessment systems tailored for patients needing multidisciplinary treatment.This review focuses on the current applica-tion status of periodontal risk assessment systems.

Risk assessment models for periodontal disease provide dentists with a precise and consolidated evalua-tion of the prognosis of periodontitis,enabling the formulation of personalized treatment plans.Periodontal risk assess-ment systems have been widely applied in clinical practice and research.The application fields of periodontal risk assessment systems vary based on the distinctions between clinical periodontal parameters and risk factors.The assess-ment models listed below are commonly used in clinical practice,including the periodontal risk calculator(PRC),which is an individual-based periodontal risk assessment tool that collects both periodontal and systemic information for pre-diction;the periodontal assessment tool(PAT),which allows for quantitative differentiation of stages of periodontal dis-ease;the periodontal risk assessment(PRA)and modified periodontal risk assessment(mPRA),which are easy to use;and the classification and regression trees(CART),which assess the periodontal prognosis based on a single affected tooth.Additionally,there are orthodontic-periodontal combined risk assessment systems and implant periapical risk as-sessment systems tailored for patients needing multidisciplinary treatment.This review focuses on the current applica-tion status of periodontal risk assessment systems.

Risk assessment models for periodontal disease provide dentists with a precise and consolidated evalua-tion of the prognosis of periodontitis,enabling the formulation of personalized treatment plans.Periodontal risk assess-ment systems have been widely applied in clinical practice and research.The application fields of periodontal risk assessment systems vary based on the distinctions between clinical periodontal parameters and risk factors.The assess-ment models listed below are commonly used in clinical practice,including the periodontal risk calculator(PRC),which is an individual-based periodontal risk assessment tool that collects both periodontal and systemic information for pre-diction;the periodontal assessment tool(PAT),which allows for quantitative differentiation of stages of periodontal dis-ease;the periodontal risk assessment(PRA)and modified periodontal risk assessment(mPRA),which are easy to use;and the classification and regression trees(CART),which assess the periodontal prognosis based on a single affected tooth.Additionally,there are orthodontic-periodontal combined risk assessment systems and implant periapical risk as-sessment systems tailored for patients needing multidisciplinary treatment.This review focuses on the current applica-tion status of periodontal risk assessment systems.