08 �� 469.90 g. and that of newborns to mothers without sellectchem radiography history was 3116.22 �� 511.80 g. The difference between these two means was not statistically significant either. Table 2 Effects of pregnant mother’s exposure to some ionizing and non-ionizing radiation on birth weight Regarding the non-ionizing radiation, we found that there was not statistically any significant difference between the birth weight of newborns to mothers exposed to electromagnetic fields (cell phones, cordless telephone, cathode-ray tube and so on) during their pregnancy and that of newborns to mothers not exposed to such radiations. Among Inhibitors,Modulators,Libraries these mothers in our study, 52.75% had made use of cell phones during their pregnancy. The mean birth weight of newborns to mothers making use of cell phones was 3126.

84 �� 509.39 g and that of newborns to mothers not using cell phones was 3098.44 �� 51.22 g. Again, the Inhibitors,Modulators,Libraries Inhibitors,Modulators,Libraries difference was not statistically significant. Also among these mothers in our study, 78.5% had never made use of home cordless phones during their pregnancy. The mean birth weight of newborns to these mothers was 3113.31 �� 511.47 g and the mean birth weight of newborns to mothers who had used such phones during their pregnancy was 3101.32 �� 505.07 g. Again Inhibitors,Modulators,Libraries the difference between the means was not statistically significant. Finally, among these mothers in this study, 84.5% had never used monitors with the cathode ray tube (CRT) technology during their pregnancy. The mean birth weight of newborns to such mothers was 3108.32 �� 516.89 g and newborns to mothers using such devices was 3126.

69 �� 466.69 g. Again no statistically significant difference was found between these two groups. The effects of exposure to ionizing and non-ionizing radiation during pregnancy on birth weight are displayed in Table 1. DISCUSSION Altogether, our study could not show any statistical significant difference between the mean weight of newborns whose mothers Inhibitors,Modulators,Libraries had been exposed to some common sources of ionizing and non-ionizing radiations such as dental or non dental radiographies, mobile phone, cordless phone and cathode ray tube (CRT) and those of the non-exposed mothers. In contrast with what is claimed in a previously published article that pregnant women’s exposure to dental radiography increases the risk of low birth weight.

[1] our study showed that there was no statistically significant difference between the birth weight of newborns to mothers exposed to dental radiography during their pregnancy and that of newborns to mothers not exposed. As was mentioned above, in our study only 19 mothers (1.58%) had undergone dental radiography, but the percentage of dental radiography in pregnant women in America Carfilzomib is not clearly reported. However, it is claimed that only 22 to 34% of women in the United States consult a dentist during pregnancy.

The maximum sum score is 30 points, selleck chemicals Vandetanib indicating excellent cognitive function. A sum score of less than or equal to 23 was chosen as the cut-off for cognitive impairment [20]. Statistical analysis The kappa statistic (��) for multiple raters and its 95% confidence interval (CI) and the proportion of observed agreement were chosen as the measure for interrater agreement [21,22]. If there is complete agreement among the assessors, then �� = 1. If observed agreement is greater than or equal to chance expected agreement then �� �� 0. If observed agreement is less than or equal to chance expected agreement, then �� �� 0. The classification of Landis and Koch [23] was used for the interpretation of the relative strength of agreement associated with kappa statistics.

The following labels were assigned to the corresponding ranges of ��: < 0.00 poor; 0.00-0.20 slight; 0.21-0.40 fair; 0.41-0.60 moderate; 0.61-80 substantial; 0.81-1.00 almost perfect. We calculated the kappa statistic (and the 95% CI) with Microsoft? Excel software. Confidence intervals for kappas were calculated using the standard error. The extent of the agreement among the raters concerning each individual subject was calculated separately over all BES items and over all AGGIR items, using the formula of Siegel [21]. Paradoxes in �� values can be due to differences between two samples in the prevalence of an attribute [24-26]. Two samples can have the same proportion of agreement on a condition between raters but if the prevalence of that condition is higher in one sample and almost all ratings will fall into one category, then �� will typically be lower.

This paradoxical difference of the �� values arises because of the decision to impose a correction for chance agreement, making the assumption that the expected values for agreement should depend on the marginal totals. Since no assumptions are made about the marginal totals, two observers can get low values for �� despite a high percentage of observed agreement [24]. It must be emphasized that in the examples that are given in the publications mentioned above [24-26], the prevalence effect on the �� value demonstrated the effect of the imbalance of marginal totals of two response categories. In the present study, the items of the assessment instruments had three to five response categories.

It is obvious that if there is an imbalance in the marginal totals Cilengitide of multiple response categories, then the �� value will also typically be lower. In the present study, the proportion observed agreement is always presented next to the �� value in order to assess whether low �� value was due to low interobserver agreement or to the prevalence effect. If �� is low but the proportion agreement is high then it might be concluded that the measurement might to some extent be reliable.

Body cells sequester cholesterol from the LDLC fraction of lipoproteins. LDL receptors are necessary for metabolizing circulating LDLC levels and nearly 80% of the plasma LDLC is cleared by LDL receptors.[5,7,15] High activity of LDL receptors attributes for lowering the serum cholesterol levels.[5,7,16] selleck Bicalutamide In the present study, a highly significant reduction was observed in the levels of TC in the oral cancer group as compared with the controls thus supporting the hypothesis postulated above. Several prospective and retrospective studies have shown an inverse association between blood lipid profile and different cancers.[2,4,5,7,17,18,19] Lohe et al. have observed an inverse relationship between serum lipid profile and oral cancer and oral precancer.[6] Patel et al.

have also observed an inverse relationship between lower plasma lipid profile and head and neck malignancies and oral precancerous conditions.[5,7] Furthermore, some investigators have also found a relation of low serum cholesterol with increased risk of cancer occurrence and mortality.[5,6,9,20,21,22] HDLC levels may be a useful indicator, reflecting the initial changes occurring in neoplastic conditions.[7] A drastic reduction in levels of HDLC was observed in our study, which is in accordance with previous reports[2,5,6,19,23,24] stating that low HDLC is an additional predictor of cancer and it might be a consequence of disease that is mediated by utilization of cholesterol for membrane biogenesis of the proliferating malignant cells.

[5,23] We observed significantly decreased TGL levels in cancer patients as compared with the controls, which is in agreement with the previous studies.[5,23] However, Alexopoulos et al. have found a non-significant difference in serum TGL between controls and patients,[5,18] while others have observed elevated TGL levels in cancer patients.[2,5,25] Serum LDLC and VLDLC levels did not reveal any significant difference between the two groups. Similar results for LDLC and VLDLC were observed in a study conducted by Chawda et al.[23] Histopathologically, the oral cancer group was graded as well-differentiated, moderately differentiated or poorly differentiated squamous cell carcinoma. While comparing all the lipid levels between the three different groups of oral cancer patients, there was no statistically significant difference found.

The results of our study were in accordance with the studies conducted by Lohe et al. and Chawda et al.[6,23] Lipid peroxidation is an essential Entinostat biochemical process that involves the oxidation of polyunsaturated fatty acids, the important components of cell membranes. Tobacco carcinogens generate reactive oxygen species and lipid peroxides, which result in tissue injury, thus damaging the cellular structural blocks like lipids, proteins, DNA, etc., This process affects essential constituents of cell membranes and might be involved in carcinogenesis/tumorigenesis.