RESUMEN
To investigate how and to what extent there are differences in the photosynthetic plasticity of trees in response to different light environments, six species from three successional groups (late successional, mid-successional, and pioneers) were exposed to three different light environments [deep shade - DS (5% full sunlight - FS), moderate shade - MS (35% FS) and full sunlight - FS]. Maximum net photosynthesis (Amax), leaf N partitioning, stomatal, mesophile, and biochemical limitations (SL, ML, and BL, respectively), carboxylation velocity (Vcmax), and electron transport (Jmax) rates, and the state of photosynthetic induction (IS) were evaluated. Higher values of Amax, Vcmax, and Jmax in FS were observed for pioneer species, which invested the largest amount of leaf N in Rubisco. The lower IS for pioneer species reveals its reduced ability to take advantage of sunflecks. In general, the main photosynthetic limitations are diffusive, with SL and ML having equal importance under FS, and ML decreasing along with irradiance. The leaf traits, which are more determinant of the photosynthetic process, respond independently in relation to the successional group, especially with low light availability. An effective partitioning of leaf N between photosynthetic and structural components played a crucial role in the acclimation process and determined the increase or decrease of photosynthesis in response to the light conditions.
Asunto(s)
Fotosíntesis , Hojas de la Planta , Luz Solar , Árboles , Fotosíntesis/fisiología , Árboles/fisiología , Hojas de la Planta/fisiología , Hojas de la Planta/efectos de la radiación , Hojas de la Planta/metabolismo , Luz , Brasil , Aclimatación/fisiología , Transporte de Electrón , Ribulosa-Bifosfato Carboxilasa/metabolismo , Nitrógeno/metabolismoRESUMEN
AIM: To compare the impact of the two different root canal preparation systems on the quality of life of patients and correlate postoperative pain with the impact on quality of life. METHODOLOGY: A randomized clinical trial was conducted with 58 patients allocated into two groups based on the root canal preparation system employed: ProTaper Next (PN) or Reciproc (R). Data collection involved the administration of a questionnaire addressing demographic and clinical characteristics, the OHIP-14 (quality of life) and a visual analog scale (pain). The latter two were the outcomes of interest and were administered in the first 24 h after root canal treatment. The data were submitted to descriptive analysis, bivariate analysis, Poisson univariate and multiple regression, and Spearman's correlation test, with a 5% significance level. RESULTS: A greater frequency of impact after treatment was found for the items 'uncomfortable to eat food' and 'felt self-conscious'. No significant difference between groups was found regarding the severity of impact for total OHIP-14 score or any of the domain scores. CONCLUSIONS: The two root canal preparation systems exerted a similar impact on quality of life. Postoperative pain was correlated with impact on quality of life, affecting chewing function, self-consciousness and stress. Thus, it is important for dentists to provide care capable of preventing or treating the negative consequences of such therapy.