Carbon nantubes composites draws more and more attention these days. Its application provides new potential for the reinforcement and toughness of dental ceramic. In this paper, the properties of carbon nanotube, carbon nanotube based ceramic composites and its mechanics of toughness, and the future trend of carbon nanotube in dental ceramic material, have been reviewed.

In order to improve its dispersion condition in dental composite resin and enhance its interaction with the matrix, single-walled carbon nanotubes(SWNTs) were refluxed and oxidized, then treated by APTE. Their outer surface were coated by nano-SiO2 particles using sol-gel process, then further treated by organosilanes ATES. IR and TEM were used to analyze modification results. TEM pictures showed nano-particles were on the surface of SWNTs; IR showed characteristic adsorbing bands of SiO2. Composite resin specimen with modified SWNTs was prepared and examined by TEM. SWNTs were detected in composite resin matrix among other inorganic fillers.
Composite Resins ; chemistry ; Dental Materials ; chemistry ; Humans ; Nanotubes, Carbon ; chemistry ; Resin Cements ; chemistry ; Silicon Dioxide ; chemistry ; Surface Properties ; Tensile Strength

Objective To find the best time to remeasure temperature after cooling with evidence-based practice. Methods Used Johns Hopkins′ Evidence Based Practice Tool to find the best time to remeasure temperature after cooling. That tool included three steps which were establish problem, evidence synthesis and transfer evaluation. Results The best time to remeasure temperature after physical cooling was 30 minutes. The best time to remeasure temperature after drug cooling was 60 minutes. The best time to remeasure temperature after physical and drug combination cooling was 30 minutes after physical cooling and 60 minutes after using drug. Conclusion The best time to remeasure temperature after cooling was different because of the different cooling methods.

Objective:To investigate the application value of enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) in perioperative period of laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy (LSG).Method:The retrospective cohort study was conducted. The clinical data of 1 181 patients undergoing LSG in the Sir Run Run Shaw Hospital, Affiliated with the Zhejiang University School of Medicine from January 2021 to December 2023 were collected. There were 242 males and 939 females, aged (31±8)years. Of 1 181 patients, 598 cases receiving routine perioperative care were divided into the control group, and 583 cases receiving perioperative care with ERAS were divided into the ERAS group. Measurement data with normal distribution were represented as Mean± SD, and the independent sample t test was used for comparison between the groups. Measurement data with skewed distribution were represented as M( Q1, Q3), and the Mann-Whitney rank sum test was used for comparison between the groups. Count data were expressed as absolute numbers or percentages, and the chi-square test or Fisher exact probability were used for comparison between the groups. Repeated measurement data were analyzed using the repeated ANOVA, with baseline scores as covariates. Simple effects analysis was conducted in case of interaction, and multiple comparisons were adjusted using the Bonferroni method. Results:(1) Postoperative outcomes. The numerical rating scale (NRS) scores for pain at immediate return to the ward and on the third postoperative mornings changed from 5.35±0.93 to 2.57±0.83 in the control group, versus changed from 3.15±0.93 to 0.70±0.65 in the ERAS group, showing significant difference between the two groups ( Ftime=66.58, Fgroup=1 765.85, Finteraction=6.90, P<0.05). After adjusting NRS scores for pain at immediate return to the ward as the baseline, results of simple effects analysis showed that on the third postoperative mornings, the NRS scores in the ERAS group were lower by 1.89, 1.53, and 1.76 respectively compared to the control group ( P<0.05). Cases with nausea at immediate return to the ward and on the third postoperative mornings changed from 497 to 97 in the control group, versus changed from 198 to 11 in the ERAS group, showing signifi-cant difference between the two groups ( χ2=294.45, 398.76,209.39, 73.00, P<0.05). Cases with vomiting at immediate return to the ward and on the third postoperative mornings changed from 243 to 41 in the control group, versus changed from 51 to 2 in the ERAS group, showing significant difference between the two groups ( χ2=160.54, 149.37, 71.76, 35.69, P<0.05). The duration of postoperative hospital stay was (3.22±0.65)days in the control group, versus (2.17±0.49)days in the ERAS group, showing a significant difference between the two groups ( t=-11.89, P<0.05). (2) Complications. The incidence of cases with dehydration within postoperative 30 days was 0.50%(3/598) in the control group, versus 0.69%(4/583) in the ERAS group, showing no significant difference between the two groups ( P>0.05). None of patient in the control group and the ERAS group experienced bleeding, gastric leakage, intra-abdominal infection, and no patient had unplanned secondary surgery within postoperative 30 days. Conclusions:ERAS in perioperative period of LSG are safe and feasible. Compared to routine care, ERAS can significantly reduce postoperative pain, decrease the incidence of postoperative nausea and vomiting, shorten the postoperative hospital stay, and do not increase the rate of postoperative complications or unplanned secondary surgeries within postoperative 30 days.