Assuntos
Carcinoma de Células Escamosas , Neoplasias de Cabeça e Pescoço , RNA Longo não Codificante , Neoplasias da Língua , Humanos , Carcinoma de Células Escamosas/genética , Carcinoma de Células Escamosas/patologia , RNA Longo não Codificante/genética , Neoplasias da Língua/genética , Neoplasias da Língua/patologia , Prognóstico , Neoplasias de Cabeça e Pescoço/genética , Língua , Regulação Neoplásica da Expressão Gênica , Biomarcadores Tumorais/genética , Linhagem Celular Tumoral , Proliferação de Células/genéticaRESUMO
PURPOSE: We investigated ocular accommodative responses and pupil diameters under different light intensities in order to explore whether changes in light intensity aid effective accommodation function training. METHODS: A total of 29 emmetropic and myopic subjects (age range: 12-18 years) viewed a target in dynamic ambient light (luminance: 5, 100, 200, 500, 1000, 2000 and 3000 lux) and static ambient light (luminance: 1000 lux) at a 40 cm distance with refractive correction. Accommodation and pupil diameter were recorded using an open-field infrared autorefractor and an ultrasound biological microscope, respectively. RESULTS: The changes in the amplitude of accommodative response and pupil diameter under dynamic lighting were 1.01 ± 0.53 D and 2.80 ± 0.75 mm, respectively, whereas in static lighting, those values were 0.43 ± 0.24 D and 0.77 ± 0.27 mm, respectively. The amplitude of accommodation and pupil diameter change in dynamic lighting (t = 6.097, p < 0.001) was significantly larger than that under static lighting (t = 16.115, p < 0.001).The effects of light level on both accommodation and pupil diameter were significant (p < 0.001). CONCLUSION: Accommodation was positively correlated with light intensity. The difference was about 1.0 D in the range of 0-3000 lux, which may lay the foundation for accommodative training through light intervention.
Assuntos
Acomodação Ocular , Iluminação , Adolescente , Criança , Humanos , Pupila/fisiologia , Refração Ocular , Testes VisuaisRESUMO
PURPOSE: This study aimed to assess the stability and survival rate of dental implants inserted with different site preparation techniques-piezoelectric inserts versus traditional rotary instruments. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Correlative research was located by searching articles in PubMed, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Library. This was accomplished independently by two different reviewers and supplemented by a manual search. Only prospective studies evaluating piezoelectric vs conventional implant site preparation in dental implantation were included in this review. A meta-analysis was performed on the stability and survival rate of implants. RESULTS: One thousand fifty-five articles were identified following the search strategy, of which five studies were finally included in this meta-analysis. With regard to the survival rate of implants, there was no statistically significant difference between piezoelectric and conventional implant site preparation (RR = 0.98, 95% CI: 0.94, 1.03; I2 = 0%, P = .86). On the other side, the piezoelectric group had better stability in the eighth week (MD = 4.24, 95% CI: 1.36, 7.12; I2 = 0%, P = .80) and 12th week (MD = 3.33, 95% CI: 0.59, 6.08; I2 = 0%, P = .87) compared with the conventional group. CONCLUSION: Within the limitations of this study, it suggests that the survival rate of implants may not be influenced by the site preparation techniques (piezoelectric vs conventional), but the piezoelectric group may achieve better stability than the conventional group.
