Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Show: 20 | 50 | 100
Results 1 - 3 de 3
Filter
Add more filters










Database
Language
Publication year range
1.
Nature ; 564(7736): E32-E34, 2018 12.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-30568200
2.
J Oral Rehabil ; 39(9): 639-47, 2012 Sep.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-22582832

ABSTRACT

Masticatory efficiency in individuals with extensive tooth loss has been widely discussed. However, little is known about jaw movement smoothness during chewing and the effect of differences in food bolus location on movement smoothness and masticatory efficiency. The aim of this study was to determine whether experimental differences in food bolus location (anterior versus posterior) had an effect on masticatory efficiency and jaw movement smoothness. Jaw movement smoothness was evaluated by measuring jerk-cost (calculated from acceleration) with an accelerometer that was attached to the skin of the mentum of 10 asymptomatic subjects, and acceleration was recorded during chewing on two-colour chewing gum, which was used to assessed masticatory efficiency. Chewing was performed under two conditions: posterior chewing (chewing on molars and premolars only) and anterior chewing (chewing on canine and first premolar teeth only). Jerk-cost and masticatory efficiency (calculated as the ratio of unmixed azure colour to the total area of gum, the unmixed fraction) were compared between anterior and posterior chewing with the Wilcoxon signed rank test (two-tailed). Subjects chewed significantly less efficiently during anterior chewing than during posterior chewing (P = 0·0051). There was no significant difference in jerk-cost between anterior and posterior conditions in the opening phase (P = 0·25), or closing phase (P = 0·42). This is the first characterisation of the effect of food bolus location on jaw movement smoothness at the same time as recording masticatory efficiency. The data suggest that anterior chewing decreases masticatory efficiency, but does not influence jerk-cost.


Subject(s)
Jaw/physiology , Mastication/physiology , Movement/physiology , Adult , Chewing Gum , Female , Humans , Male , Pilot Projects , Young Adult
3.
J Travel Med ; 8(4): 167-72, 2001.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-11703900

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: The use of preventive measures, including effective chemoprophylaxis, is essential for protection against malaria among travelers. However, data have shown that travelers and medical advisors are confused by the lack of uniform recommendations and numerous prophylactic regimens of varying effectiveness that are used. METHODS: To assess the use and type of preventive measures against malaria, we conducted a cross-sectional study in 1997 among travelers departing from the Nairobi and Mombasa airports in Kenya with European destinations. RESULTS: Seventy-five percent of the travelers studied were residents of Europe and 25% were residents of North America; all stayed less than 1 year, and visited malarious areas. Most travelers, 97.1%, were aware of the risk and 91.3% sought pretravel medical advice. Although 95.4% used chemoprophylaxis and/or antimosquito measures, only 61.7% used both regular chemoprophylaxis and two or more antimosquito measures. Compliance with chemoprophylaxis was lowest amongst those who used a drug with a daily, as opposed to, a weekly dosing schedule, stayed more than 1 month, attributed an adverse health event to the chemoprophylaxis, and were less than 40 years of age. Among US travelers, 94.6% of those taking chemoprophylaxis were taking an effective regimen, that is, mefloquine or doxycycline. Only 1.9% used a suboptimal drug regimen, such as chloroquine/proguanil. Among European travelers, 69% used mefloquine or doxycycline, and 25% used chloroquine/proguanil. Notably, 45.3% of travelers from the UK used chloroquine/proguanil. Adverse events were noted by 19.7% of mefloquine users and 16.4% of travelers taking chloroquine/proguanil. Neuropsychologic adverse events were reported by 7.8% of users of mefloquine and 1.9% of those taking chloroquine/proguanil. The adverse events, however, had a lesser impact on compliance than frequent dosing schedule. CONCLUSIONS: Health information should be targeted to travelers who are likely to use suboptimal chemoprophylaxis or may be noncompliant with prophylaxis. Uniform recommendations for effective chemoprophylaxis with simple dosing schedules are necessary to reduce rates of malaria among travelers to Africa.


Subject(s)
Antimalarials/administration & dosage , Malaria/prevention & control , Patient Compliance/statistics & numerical data , Travel , Adult , Cross-Sectional Studies , Drug Administration Schedule , Europe , Female , Humans , Kenya , Male , North America , Surveys and Questionnaires
SELECTION OF CITATIONS
SEARCH DETAIL
...