1.CON-CLUSION:Safe,effective and cheap antiinfectives assume a predominant place in our hospital.

Objective:To investigate the effect of arterial baroreflex(ABR)on survival rate of rats with cecal ligation and puncture(CLP)-induced sepsis.Methods:Male Sprague-Dawley rats were divided into 2 groups:sham-operated rats(n=22)and sinoaortic denervated(SAD)rats(n=22).Four weeks after SAD rats were subjected to CLP-induced sepsis,the blood pressure and heart period(HP)were monitored for 12 hours in conscious state and the survival of rats was observed.Results:Both the diastolic and systolic blood pressue gradually decreased after CLP;the HP shortened first and then drastically prolonged until the death of rats.At 12 h after CLP the survival rate of SAD rats was lower than that of the sham-operated rats(59% vs 86%).Significant differences were found between the Kaplan-Meier survival curves of the rats in 2 groups(P

Objective To investigate the understanding of nursing undergraduates on disaster and disaster nursing, so as to provide reference and basis for disaster nursing education. Methods On the basis of Jennings-Sanders nursing students′perceptions about disaster nursing questionnaire, we designed questionnaire on recognition of disaster and disaster nursing from grade one to three students. Results Most of the students had comprehensive understanding about disaster concept and had a high learning intention ( 87. 2%) about disaster nursing. Lectures(n=56), video learning(n=30), disaster skills training(n=28)and disaster drills (n=27) were four important forms of disaster nursing learning in students. 56 (42. 1%) nursing students thought the first year of college was the proper time to learn disaster nursing knowledge. The content of disaster nursing included both disasters knowledge and disaster prevention knowledge, both knowledge and skills about disasters escaping, self and mutual medical aid, physiological and psychological medical aid. Conclusions To carry out disaster nursing education in nursing students is necessary and important.

PURPOSE: This study aimed to evaluate the accuracy of the ultrasonic jaw tracking system by comparing with the conventional electronic system in recording condylar movements. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Twenty-six subjects with normal occlusion participated in the study. The CADIAX® 4 and Jaw Motion Analyzer (JMA) systems were used to record condylar movement trajectories during mandibular border movements (protrusive/retrusive, lateral, and wide mouth opening), with each movement repeated three times. Both systems used facebows and sensors to locate the condylar axis points and capture movement trajectory data. Paired t-tests were used for normally distributed data, while the Wilcoxon rank-sum test was applied to non-normally distributed data. The level of significance was set at α = .05. RESULTS: The maximum condylar displacement in the sagittal plane during mandibular border movements and the sagittal condylar inclination (SCI) values on both the left and right sides showed no significant difference between the two systems (P > .05). The Bennett angle (BA) values on both the left and right sides measured by the JMA system were significantly higher than those measured by the CADIAX® 4 system (P < .05). The comfort levels of the JMA system were significantly higher than the CADIAX® 4 system (P < .05). CONCLUSION Through this study, it was found that the accuracy of the ultrasonic jaw tracking system was comparable with the conventional electronic system, except for the Bennett angle measurement. In terms of comfort and ease of use, the ultrasonic jaw tracking system is more favored.

PURPOSE: This study aimed to evaluate the accuracy of the ultrasonic jaw tracking system by comparing with the conventional electronic system in recording condylar movements. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Twenty-six subjects with normal occlusion participated in the study. The CADIAX® 4 and Jaw Motion Analyzer (JMA) systems were used to record condylar movement trajectories during mandibular border movements (protrusive/retrusive, lateral, and wide mouth opening), with each movement repeated three times. Both systems used facebows and sensors to locate the condylar axis points and capture movement trajectory data. Paired t-tests were used for normally distributed data, while the Wilcoxon rank-sum test was applied to non-normally distributed data. The level of significance was set at α = .05. RESULTS: The maximum condylar displacement in the sagittal plane during mandibular border movements and the sagittal condylar inclination (SCI) values on both the left and right sides showed no significant difference between the two systems (P > .05). The Bennett angle (BA) values on both the left and right sides measured by the JMA system were significantly higher than those measured by the CADIAX® 4 system (P < .05). The comfort levels of the JMA system were significantly higher than the CADIAX® 4 system (P < .05). CONCLUSION Through this study, it was found that the accuracy of the ultrasonic jaw tracking system was comparable with the conventional electronic system, except for the Bennett angle measurement. In terms of comfort and ease of use, the ultrasonic jaw tracking system is more favored.

PURPOSE: This study aimed to evaluate the accuracy of the ultrasonic jaw tracking system by comparing with the conventional electronic system in recording condylar movements. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Twenty-six subjects with normal occlusion participated in the study. The CADIAX® 4 and Jaw Motion Analyzer (JMA) systems were used to record condylar movement trajectories during mandibular border movements (protrusive/retrusive, lateral, and wide mouth opening), with each movement repeated three times. Both systems used facebows and sensors to locate the condylar axis points and capture movement trajectory data. Paired t-tests were used for normally distributed data, while the Wilcoxon rank-sum test was applied to non-normally distributed data. The level of significance was set at α = .05. RESULTS: The maximum condylar displacement in the sagittal plane during mandibular border movements and the sagittal condylar inclination (SCI) values on both the left and right sides showed no significant difference between the two systems (P > .05). The Bennett angle (BA) values on both the left and right sides measured by the JMA system were significantly higher than those measured by the CADIAX® 4 system (P < .05). The comfort levels of the JMA system were significantly higher than the CADIAX® 4 system (P < .05). CONCLUSION Through this study, it was found that the accuracy of the ultrasonic jaw tracking system was comparable with the conventional electronic system, except for the Bennett angle measurement. In terms of comfort and ease of use, the ultrasonic jaw tracking system is more favored.

PURPOSE: This study aimed to evaluate the accuracy of the ultrasonic jaw tracking system by comparing with the conventional electronic system in recording condylar movements. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Twenty-six subjects with normal occlusion participated in the study. The CADIAX® 4 and Jaw Motion Analyzer (JMA) systems were used to record condylar movement trajectories during mandibular border movements (protrusive/retrusive, lateral, and wide mouth opening), with each movement repeated three times. Both systems used facebows and sensors to locate the condylar axis points and capture movement trajectory data. Paired t-tests were used for normally distributed data, while the Wilcoxon rank-sum test was applied to non-normally distributed data. The level of significance was set at α = .05. RESULTS: The maximum condylar displacement in the sagittal plane during mandibular border movements and the sagittal condylar inclination (SCI) values on both the left and right sides showed no significant difference between the two systems (P > .05). The Bennett angle (BA) values on both the left and right sides measured by the JMA system were significantly higher than those measured by the CADIAX® 4 system (P < .05). The comfort levels of the JMA system were significantly higher than the CADIAX® 4 system (P < .05). CONCLUSION Through this study, it was found that the accuracy of the ultrasonic jaw tracking system was comparable with the conventional electronic system, except for the Bennett angle measurement. In terms of comfort and ease of use, the ultrasonic jaw tracking system is more favored.

PURPOSE: This study aimed to evaluate the accuracy of the ultrasonic jaw tracking system by comparing with the conventional electronic system in recording condylar movements. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Twenty-six subjects with normal occlusion participated in the study. The CADIAX® 4 and Jaw Motion Analyzer (JMA) systems were used to record condylar movement trajectories during mandibular border movements (protrusive/retrusive, lateral, and wide mouth opening), with each movement repeated three times. Both systems used facebows and sensors to locate the condylar axis points and capture movement trajectory data. Paired t-tests were used for normally distributed data, while the Wilcoxon rank-sum test was applied to non-normally distributed data. The level of significance was set at α = .05. RESULTS: The maximum condylar displacement in the sagittal plane during mandibular border movements and the sagittal condylar inclination (SCI) values on both the left and right sides showed no significant difference between the two systems (P > .05). The Bennett angle (BA) values on both the left and right sides measured by the JMA system were significantly higher than those measured by the CADIAX® 4 system (P < .05). The comfort levels of the JMA system were significantly higher than the CADIAX® 4 system (P < .05). CONCLUSION Through this study, it was found that the accuracy of the ultrasonic jaw tracking system was comparable with the conventional electronic system, except for the Bennett angle measurement. In terms of comfort and ease of use, the ultrasonic jaw tracking system is more favored.