Effects of the COVID-19 pandemic on semen quality in male partners of infertile couples: a hospital-based observational study / 亚洲男科学杂志(英文版)

The effects of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic on male fertility have received considerable attention because human testes contain high levels of angiotensin-converting enzyme-2 receptors, through which severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) can enter. Early studies showed decreases in semen quality during and after recovery from COVID-19. However, no semen quality studies have examined the effects of widespread subclinical and mild disease, as well as changes in lifestyle, psychosocial behavior, intake of dietary supplements, and stress. This cross-sectional study compared semen quality parameters in male partners of infertile couples between men who underwent semen analysis before the COVID-19 pandemic (prepandemic group) and men who underwent semen analysis during the pandemic period (pandemic group); the analysis sought to clarify the overall effects of the pandemic. No participants in the pandemic group had experienced clinically overt disease. Among the 239 participants, mean body weight (P = 0.001), mean body mass index (P < 0.001), median sperm concentration (P = 0.014), total sperm count (P = 0.006), and total percentages of motile (P = 0.013) and abnormal cells (P < 0.001) were significantly greater in the pandemic group (n = 137) than those in the prepandemic group (n = 102). Among abnormal cells, the percentages of cells with excess residual cytoplasm (P < 0.001), head defects (P < 0.001), and tail defects (P = 0.015) were significantly greater in the pandemic group than those in the prepandemic group. With the exception of morphology, the overall semenogram results were better in the pandemic group than those in the prepandemic group.

Evaluation of the Antimicrobial Activity of Magnetized Water and Its Comparison with Chlorhexidine 0.2% in Young Children for 3 Weeks.

AIM: The goal of this study was to compare the effects of magnetized water and 0.2% chlorhexidine mouthwash on gingivitis and plaque prevention in children aged 12-15 years for a period of 21 days. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A total of 24 youngsters between the ages of 12 and 15 years were chosen. A computer-generated random number sequence was used to split the research participants into two groups. Magnetized water was utilized as a mouthrinse in Category 1, while 0.2% chlorhexidine was employed in Category 2. Water purified with reverse osmosis was stored in glass bottles, which were then put near the magnets to create magnetic water. The magnets had 1000 Gauss power. The bottles were put for a period of 24 hours. The youngsters were given 140 mL of mouthrinse. These mouthrinses were to be used at home, they were told. The Gilmore Turesky adaptation of Quigley Hein's plaque index was used to assess the plaque whereas the gingival index recommended by Loe and Sillness was utilized to assess the gingiva. The plaque index and gingival index were analyzed at baseline, 14 days, and 21 days, as well as history and examination for adverse effects such as bitter taste, brownish discoloration, and so on, were recorded. The trial lasted 21 days with a follow-up period of another 21 days. RESULTS: Both magnetic water and chlorhexidine were similarly successful in managing periodontal and gingival infections; however, magnetized water had less side effects, such as a bitter metallic taste and brown stains. CONCLUSION: Because of its well-accepted flavor, softer nature, and lower frequency of brown stains, magnetized water can be a safer and more acceptable alternative to chlorhexidine mouthwashes, especially in youngsters. CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE: The use of chlorhexidine as a mouthrinse in the oral cavity has been linked to side effects. These side effects are mostly localized, such as brownish discoloration of teeth, alterations in taste perception, and erosion of the oral mucosa. As chlorhexidine has such negative side effects, it was necessary to do research, particularly in children, to identify a replacement that is similarly efficient against germs but does not have these side effects. Water treated with a magnetic field (magnetized water) was compared with chlorhexidine in the current study.

Comparison between Mineral Trioxide Aggregate Mixed with Water and Water-based Gel Regarding Shear Bond Strength with Resin-modified Glass Ionomer Cement and Composite.

AIM AND OBJECTIVE: To compare between mineral trioxide aggregate (MTA) mixed with water and water-based gel regarding shear bond strength with resin-modified glass ionomer cement (RMGIC) and composite. METHODS AND MATERIALS: In this study, 40 blocks of cylindrical shape were prepared with acrylic. These blocks were divided into four groups with each group consisting of 10 blocks: group-1A: MTA + distilled water + composite, group-1B: MTA + distilled water + RMGIC, group-2A: MTA + polymer + composite, and group-2B: RMGIC + MTA + polymer. After that, a universal testing machine was used for the measurement of shear bond strength. The acrylic blocks were placed under this machine. A blade with a knife-edge was used to provide a crosshead speed of 1 mm/minute. This was continued till bond of MTA in both forms (distilled water/gel) and restorative material failed. RESULTS: It was observed that a statistically significant difference was found between MTAw + composite and MTAg + composite resin but no statistically significant difference between MTAw + RMGIC and MTAg + RMGIC with p ≥ 0.05. It was found that a statistically significant difference was present between the RMGIC and composite groups within the same MTA type with p ≤ 0.05. CONCLUSION: It was concluded from the present study that MTA with a water-based gel has a better shear bond strength than composite resin and RMGIC materials. CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE: It has been found that MTA has different properties when it is mixed with polymer and water. Very few studies have been conducted in the past to compare MTA mixed with water and water-based gel regarding the shear bond strength with RMGIC and composite.

Comparison and Evaluation of Linear Dimensional Accuracy of Three Elastomeric Impression Materials at Different Time Intervals Using Vision Inspection System: An In Vitro Study.

BACKGROUND: Making an impression represents a crucial step in fabrication of a prosthesis. Elastomers are the most commonly used materials for precise and accurate recording and reproduction of tooth morphology and surrounding soft tissue. AIMS AND OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to compare and evaluate the linear dimensional accuracy of three elastomeric impression materials: addition silicone, condensation silicone, and polyether at different time intervals up to 15 days using a vision inspection system. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Dimensional accuracy of impression materials was measured at certain designated time periods using stainless steel die. The impressions of die were made using one representative material of each type of elastomeric impression material. The die along with the impression material in the mold was held using a clamp and put in a water bath maintained at mouth temperature. The linear dimensional changes taking place in each material with time were measured using the vision inspection system. RESULTS: On comparison with master die impression at 30min, 1h, and 1½ h time interval, a significant decreased mean dimension of condensation silicone was observed, whereas addition silicone and polyether showed statistically nonsignificant difference. At 2, 3, 4, and 12h time span, a significant difference in mean dimension of addition and condensation silicone was noted, whereas polyether showed a nonsignificant difference. At 24h, 1 week, and 15 days duration, on comparison with the master die, a significant reduction in mean dimension of condensation silicone was discovered, whereas addition silicone and polyether showed nonsignificant difference. CONCLUSION: Polyether showed significantly lesser dimensional changes among all three materials, though the differences were small enough to be considered clinically acceptable.