ABSTRACT
The purpose of this study was to evaluate the effect of dicalcium phosphate dihydrate (DCPD) on the biocompatibility of mineral trioxide aggregate (MTA). DCPD was added to MTA (OrthoMTA) to suppress the increase in pH of MTA during hardening, and the change of pH, cytotoxicity, and subcutaneous inflammation reactions in mouse model were observed. The pH of OrthoMTA and DCPD-OrthoMTA at 1st day in phosphate-buffered saline was 12.5 and 12.8, respectively. At 19th day, the pH was 11.6 (OrthoMTA) and 8.8 (DCPD-OrthoMTA). Cytotoxicity of DCPD-OrthoMTA extract was lesser than that of OrthoMTA at high concentration (above 50%) (p<0.05). No significant differences appeared in subcutaneous inflammatory reactions among ProRoot MTA, OrthoMTA and DCPD-OrthoMTA. Therefore, it is likely that there is no apparent relationship between the cytotoxicity and subcutaneous inflammation in our experimental conditions.
ABSTRACT
The purpose of this study was to evaluate the effect of dicalcium phosphate dihydrate (DCPD) on the biocompatibility of mineral trioxide aggregate (MTA). DCPD was added to MTA (OrthoMTA) to suppress the increase in pH of MTA during hardening, and the change of pH, cytotoxicity, and subcutaneous inflammation reactions in mouse model were observed. The pH of OrthoMTA and DCPD-OrthoMTA at 1st day in phosphate-buffered saline was 12.5 and 12.8, respectively. At 19th day, the pH was 11.6 (OrthoMTA) and 8.8 (DCPD-OrthoMTA). Cytotoxicity of DCPD-OrthoMTA extract was lesser than that of OrthoMTA at high concentration (above 50%) (p<0.05). No significant differences appeared in subcutaneous inflammatory reactions among ProRoot MTA, OrthoMTA and DCPD-OrthoMTA. Therefore, it is likely that there is no apparent relationship between the cytotoxicity and subcutaneous inflammation in our experimental conditions.
ABSTRACT
PURPOSE: Evaluation of the effects of a vehicle's movement/ operation on fluid flow regulators during patient transport. To determine whether or not vehicle trembling during idling and movement during patient transport are factors affecting the velocity of fluid injection. METHODS: The volume of fluid, as measured in an idling or moving vehicle, was evaluated using three different types of marketed flow regulators at three different injection speeds: 10, 20 and 40 ml/hr. RESULTS: In all cases, when the vehicle was idling or in motion, discrepancies were observed between the pre-calculated amount of fluid and the actual amount of fluid injected. However, a greater discrepancy was observed to exist in a moving vehicle. CONCLUSION: The trembling and movement of a vehicle during patient transport affects fluid injection results.
Subject(s)
Humans , Fluid Therapy , Infusion Pumps , Transportation of PatientsABSTRACT
PURPOSE: Evaluation of the effects of a vehicle's movement/ operation on fluid flow regulators during patient transport. To determine whether or not vehicle trembling during idling and movement during patient transport are factors affecting the velocity of fluid injection. METHODS: The volume of fluid, as measured in an idling or moving vehicle, was evaluated using three different types of marketed flow regulators at three different injection speeds: 10, 20 and 40 ml/hr. RESULTS: In all cases, when the vehicle was idling or in motion, discrepancies were observed between the pre-calculated amount of fluid and the actual amount of fluid injected. However, a greater discrepancy was observed to exist in a moving vehicle. CONCLUSION: The trembling and movement of a vehicle during patient transport affects fluid injection results.
Subject(s)
Humans , Fluid Therapy , Infusion Pumps , Transportation of PatientsABSTRACT
PURPOSE: It is not always easy to determine the existence of tendon injuries when it comes to patients with finger lacerations. Thus, we tried to find the difference in effectiveness and in compliance of patients when we employed two different types of diagnosis, conventional gross confirmation and ultrasonographic confirmation. METHODS: From December 2009 to March 2010, we enrolled 14 patients with finger tendon injury at Soonchunhyang University Cheonan Hospital. The median age of the patients was 35.9+/-14.4, and the ratio of females to males was 1:2.5 We evaluated the compliance of each patient by measuring four different categories (level of cooperativeness in showing their wound and in following the instructions, level of movement of their fingers during the diagnosis and total number of attempts to diagnose) by using a score from 1 to 3 for each category, for a total possible score of 12 for each patient. We also measured the painfulness of each patient by using a score of 1 to 10 and the time required for each diagnosis. RESULTS: The levels of patients' compliance was 8.9+/-2.1 when diagnosed with gross confirmation and 9.8+/-2.1 when diagnosed with ultrasonographic confirmation (p value=0.042). The pain score of the patients was 3.7+/-1.7 with gross confirmation and 2.9+/-1.2 with ultrasonographic confirmation (p value=0.020). The median duration of time in each test was 6.7+/-4.8 minutes with gross confirmation and 10.5+/-4.2 minutes with ultrasonography (p value=0.006). CONCLUSION: Comparing gross confirmation and ultrasonographic confirmation, gross confirmation is a better method than ultrasonography because of time efficiency. However, ultrasonographic confirmation has advantages over gross confirmation in pain scale and better compliance of patients. Emergency physicians generally employ gross confirmation rather than ultrasonography in determining the existence of tendon injury in patients. In patients with finger lacerations without bone injury, ultrasonography can be considered as a secondary diagnostic tool, especially when patients have much pain.