Objectives: A comparison study between ceramic full coverage FPDs & 3 designs of ceramic inlay retained FPDs regarding vertical marginal gap & retention. Materials & Methods: Twenty samples were construc- ...Objectives: A comparison study between ceramic full coverage FPDs & 3 designs of ceramic inlay retained FPDs regarding vertical marginal gap & retention. Materials & Methods: Twenty samples were construc- ted and divided into 4 groups according to the type of restorations: full coverage, inlay-shaped (occluso-pro- ximal inlay + proximal box), tub-shaped (occluso-pro- ximal inlay), and proximal box-shaped FPDs. All samples were subjected to a vertical marginal gap measurements followed by a retention test. Results: The vertical marginal gap data showed no significant difference between full coverage FPDs, the tub-shap- ed inlay retained FPDs and the proximal box-shaped inlay retained FPDs. While there was a difference between these three designs and the inlay retained FPDs. Regarding retention, the full coverage FPDs recorded higher retentive strengths and was signifi-cant difference than all inlay retained FPDs designs tested. The inlay-shaped design was significant dif-ference than the other two inlay retained FPDs de-signs. Conclusions: There was no significant differ- ence between full coverage FPDs, tub-shaped & pro- ximal box shaped inlay retained FPDs as regard ver- tical marginal discrepancies. While, the inlay-haped design showed the highest vertical marginal discrep- ancies. The premolar & molar retainers for the same type of restorations showed no difference in vertical marginal discrepancies. All measured vertical mar- ginal discrepancies were in the range of clinical ac- ceptance. The full coverage FPDs recorded higher retentive strengths than all inlay retained FPDs de- signs tested. The inlay-shaped design recorded the highest retentive strengths among the three inlay re- tained FPDs designs. There was no difference as re- gard retentive strengths between tub-shaped & pro- ximal box shaped inlay retained FPDs.展开更多
目的比较气流冲击结合间断声门吸引法、持续声门下吸引结合灌洗法在降低机械通气并发症上的效果。方法选择行气管切开、机械通气>48 h的病人40例,按住院时间先后分为气流冲击组和灌洗组。气流冲击组采用间断声门下吸引结合每日2次气...目的比较气流冲击结合间断声门吸引法、持续声门下吸引结合灌洗法在降低机械通气并发症上的效果。方法选择行气管切开、机械通气>48 h的病人40例,按住院时间先后分为气流冲击组和灌洗组。气流冲击组采用间断声门下吸引结合每日2次气流冲击的方法清除气囊上滞留物,灌洗组采用持续声门下吸引结合每日2次声门下灌洗的方法,两组每日记录气囊上吸引量、呛咳、气道黏膜受损出血情况,并在人工气道建立1、3、7 d留取下呼吸道分泌物和声门下滞留物,进行细菌培养,比较两组病人1周气囊上吸引量、呛咳、气道黏膜受损出血及呼吸机相关性肺炎(VAP)的发生情况。结果灌洗组与气流组病人比较中3 d VAP发生率分别为15%、5%(P>0.05)、7 d VAP发生率分别为30%、15%(P>0.05),气囊上吸引量分别为(85.30±33.50)、(84.80±35.58)m L·d^(-1)(P>0.05),呛咳发生次数分别为(6.36±1.33)、(4.60±1.83)次(P<0.01)、气道黏膜受损出血的发生率分别为35%、5%(P<0.05)。结论气管切开病人使用气流冲击结合间断声门下吸引法较持续声门下吸引结合灌洗法,可以降低病人呛咳、气道黏膜受损出血等并发症的发生,减轻病人痛苦。展开更多
文摘Objectives: A comparison study between ceramic full coverage FPDs & 3 designs of ceramic inlay retained FPDs regarding vertical marginal gap & retention. Materials & Methods: Twenty samples were construc- ted and divided into 4 groups according to the type of restorations: full coverage, inlay-shaped (occluso-pro- ximal inlay + proximal box), tub-shaped (occluso-pro- ximal inlay), and proximal box-shaped FPDs. All samples were subjected to a vertical marginal gap measurements followed by a retention test. Results: The vertical marginal gap data showed no significant difference between full coverage FPDs, the tub-shap- ed inlay retained FPDs and the proximal box-shaped inlay retained FPDs. While there was a difference between these three designs and the inlay retained FPDs. Regarding retention, the full coverage FPDs recorded higher retentive strengths and was signifi-cant difference than all inlay retained FPDs designs tested. The inlay-shaped design was significant dif-ference than the other two inlay retained FPDs de-signs. Conclusions: There was no significant differ- ence between full coverage FPDs, tub-shaped & pro- ximal box shaped inlay retained FPDs as regard ver- tical marginal discrepancies. While, the inlay-haped design showed the highest vertical marginal discrep- ancies. The premolar & molar retainers for the same type of restorations showed no difference in vertical marginal discrepancies. All measured vertical mar- ginal discrepancies were in the range of clinical ac- ceptance. The full coverage FPDs recorded higher retentive strengths than all inlay retained FPDs de- signs tested. The inlay-shaped design recorded the highest retentive strengths among the three inlay re- tained FPDs designs. There was no difference as re- gard retentive strengths between tub-shaped & pro- ximal box shaped inlay retained FPDs.
文摘目的比较气流冲击结合间断声门吸引法、持续声门下吸引结合灌洗法在降低机械通气并发症上的效果。方法选择行气管切开、机械通气>48 h的病人40例,按住院时间先后分为气流冲击组和灌洗组。气流冲击组采用间断声门下吸引结合每日2次气流冲击的方法清除气囊上滞留物,灌洗组采用持续声门下吸引结合每日2次声门下灌洗的方法,两组每日记录气囊上吸引量、呛咳、气道黏膜受损出血情况,并在人工气道建立1、3、7 d留取下呼吸道分泌物和声门下滞留物,进行细菌培养,比较两组病人1周气囊上吸引量、呛咳、气道黏膜受损出血及呼吸机相关性肺炎(VAP)的发生情况。结果灌洗组与气流组病人比较中3 d VAP发生率分别为15%、5%(P>0.05)、7 d VAP发生率分别为30%、15%(P>0.05),气囊上吸引量分别为(85.30±33.50)、(84.80±35.58)m L·d^(-1)(P>0.05),呛咳发生次数分别为(6.36±1.33)、(4.60±1.83)次(P<0.01)、气道黏膜受损出血的发生率分别为35%、5%(P<0.05)。结论气管切开病人使用气流冲击结合间断声门下吸引法较持续声门下吸引结合灌洗法,可以降低病人呛咳、气道黏膜受损出血等并发症的发生,减轻病人痛苦。
