ABSTRACT
Background@#Shared decision making using patient decision aids (PtDAs) was established over a decade ago, but few studies have evaluated its efficacy in Asian countries. We therefore evaluated the application of PtDAs in a decision conflict between two muscle relaxant reversal agents, neostigmine and sugammadex, and sequentially analyzed the regional differences and operating room turnover rates. @*Methods@#This multicenter, outcome-assessor-blind, randomized controlled trial included 3,132 surgical patients from two medical centers admitted between March 2020 and August 2020. The patients were randomly divided into the classical and PtDA groups for pre-anesthesia consultations. Their clinicodemographic characteristics were analyzed to identify variables influencing the choice of reversal agent. On the day of the pre-anesthesia consultation, the patients completed the four SURE scale (sure of myself, understand information, risk-benefit ratio, encouragement) screening items. The operating turnover rates were also evaluated using anesthesia records. @*Results@#Compared with the classical group, the PtDA group felt more confident about receiving sufficient medical information (P < 0.001), felt better informed about the advantages and disadvantages of the medications (P < 0.001), exhibited a superior understanding of the benefits and risks of their options (P < 0.001), and felt surer about their choice (P < 0.001). Moreover, the PtDA group had a significantly greater tendency to choose sugammadex over neostigmine (P < 0.001). @*Conclusions@#PtDA interventions in pre-anesthesia consultations provided surgical patients with clear knowledge and better support. PtDAs should be made available in other medical fields to enhance shared clinical decision-making.
ABSTRACT
<p><b>OBJECTIVE</b>To evaluate wear resistance and hardness of three kinds of new composite resins.</p><p><b>METHODS</b>Three kinds of new composite resins, Solidex, Spectrum, Filtek Z350, were tested. Enamel as control group. A refited MG-200 wear machine was used in this study. Scanning electron microscope (SEM) was used to observe the friction surface of each tested material. Hardness of each tested material was determined by Vickers indentation technique. The data of wear and hardness were analyzed by Mann-Whitney test and 1-way ANOVA. The relationship between the hardness of the composites and the amount of wear of them was determined by a regression analysis method.</p><p><b>RESULTS</b>Filtek Z350 showed the lowest volumetric wear and highest Vickers hardness in the composites (P < 0.05). No significant differences in wear and hardness were observed between Solidex and Spectrum (P > 0.05). Significant relationships were observed between the hardness of the composites and the amount of wear of them (r = 0.968 6) (P < 0.05). Different wear characters of the friction surface of the tested materials were observed by SEM.</p><p><b>CONCLUSION</b>Nanofilled composite was superior to the hybrid composite in wear resistance and hardness.</p>
Subject(s)
Composite Resins , Dental Enamel , Dental Materials , Dental Restoration Wear , Hardness , In Vitro Techniques , Materials Testing , Surface PropertiesABSTRACT
<p><b>OBJECTIVE</b>To evaluate the clinic effects of alginate impression and agar/alginate combined impression.</p><p><b>METHODS</b>237 patients of fixed partial denture were collected and divided into group A and group B. Group A was taken impression by aglinate impression, including 81 patients (207 abutments). Group B was taken impression by agar/alginate combined impression, include 156 patients (392 abutments). The impressions were observed by megaloscope, and the number of abutment, the types and number of defect were recorded.</p><p><b>RESULTS</b>In the aglinate impressions, 57.0 percent of abutment had some defect. But in the agar/alginate combined impressions, 36.0 percent of abutment had some defect. There were significant difference between group A and group B in the abutment, air bubbles in cervical margin, unsharpness of the gingival sulcus and shoulders (P<0.05). There were no significant difference between group A and group B in the split and defect of the impressions on the cervical margin.</p><p><b>CONCLUSION</b>There were less defects in the agar/alginate combined impression than in the alginate impression.</p>