The aim of this study was to determine if anesthesia has any influence on human memory.
Human ; Middle Aged ; Adult ; Young Adult ; Adolescent ; ANESTHESIA ; MEMORY DISORDERS ; MEMORY, SHORT-TERM

OBJECTIVE: To compare the scores of patients with idiopathic Parkinson's Disease using the Montreal Cognitive Assessment and Mini-Mental State Examination in a tertiary hospital
BACKGROUND: Parkinson's Disease (PD) is a neurodegenerative disorder diagnosed clinically based on the signs of resting tremor bradykinesia, rigidity and loss of postural reflexes. According to Bassett et al, 20% to 40% of PD patients ultimately become demented with an incidence of 10% per year. Cognitive decline is an impotant predictor of dementia in PD. Almost all patients with PD suffer from selective cognitive impairments including difficulties with attention, concentration, planning, sequencing, concept formation, problem solving, set-shifting and memory which are thought ro reflect dysfunction of cortical circuits subserving frontal brain regions. Identification of cognitive impairment in PD is crucial. It predicts future cognitive decline and may eventually be a target for pharmacologic intervention to prevent or delay the development of dementia.
METHODS: A descriptive study. A convenience sampling of 95 patients with idiopathic Patkinson's disease were screened for cognitive impairment.
RESULTS: Mean MMSE and MoCA scores were 26.1 (SD 2.9) and 19.8 (SD 4.28). Based on the published cutoff scores for cognitive impairment for Parkinson's Disease, 72% of the participants scored 26/30 and below on MoCA whereas only 42% scored 26/30 and below on the MMSE. Impairments were seen in numerous cognitive domains including executive function, language, recent semantic memory, visuo-spatial processing and constructional praxis. Predictors of cognitive impairment on the MoCA include low level of education and older age.
CONCLUSIONS: MoCA was able to detect more cognitive impairments in patients with Parkinson's disease than MMSE. Therefore, MoCA is a better screening tool to detect cognitive impairments in PD patients.

Human ; Male ; Female ; Attention ; Brain ; Cognition ; Cognition Disorders ; Cognitive Dysfunction ; Dementia ; Hypokinesia ; Muscle Rigidity ; Neuropsychological Tests ; Parkinson Disease ; Tremor

X-linked dystonia parkinsonism (XDP) is a rapidly progressive and disabling neurodegenerative disease affecting mainly male Filiponos with origins from Panay Island. We reviewed all the past neurosurgical ablative procedures done for XDP patients listed in the Philippine XDP registry. From 1960 to 1982, six patients had undergone bilateral chemopallidotomies or bilateral thalomotomies stage over time. Half of these patients had significant improvement in their symptoms but five of the six patients (83%) developed postoperative morbidities, mainly speech impairment or hemiparesis, All the five reported GPi deep brain stimulation (DBS) cases for XDP were also reviewed, showing consistently immediate improvement of symptoms (61.5%-88.3% decrease in the Burke-Marsden Dystonia Rating Scale) lasting up to a year with effects noted. We also present the first Philippine case of GPi DBS done in the youngest XDP patients to date. This present case showed dramatic improvement(83.3% desrease of the Burke-Marsden_Fahn Dystonia Rating Scale) of his dystonic symptoms, without incurring any persistent adverse effects. The results of these early cases of pallidal DBS for XDP show that DBS is generally a safe and effective procedure for alleviating the disabling symptoms of XDP in contrast to previous ablative surgeries on these patient

Human ; Male ; Adult ; Deep Brain Stimulation ; Dystonia ; Dystonic Disorders ; Genetic Diseases, X-linked ; Globus Pallidus ; Diseases Neurodegenerative Diseases ; Paresis ; Parkinsonian Disorders

Objective: To study the influence of bracket base meshes on shear bond strength and observe them using a scanning electron microscopy (SEM) before and after debonding. Methods: Ninety brackets were divided into nine groups of 10 samples each: G1-Alexander, G2-Mini Sprint® Brackets, G3-In-Ovation R CCO,  G4-Gemini SL Self-Ligating Bracket, G5-Classic mini 2G Stylus® , G6-Gemini Metal Brackets, G7-ClarityTM Advanced, G8-Crystall-Ize® , and G9-Ceramic Series Flexx 2G® . Groups G1 to G6 and G7 to G9 consisted of metallic and aesthetic brackets, respectively. Initial photographs of all brackets were taken through SEM at 25X magnification. The brackets were then bonded to premolars using TransbondTM XT, and a shear bond strength test was conducted after 24 hours using an Instron machine at 1 mm/min. After debonding, the bracket meshes were observed using SEM. Results: Before bonding, 72.22% of brackets didn’t present mesh defects, while 27.77% did. SEM analysis revealed that G4 and G5 presented defects in 100%, G7 in 40%, and G8 in 10%. The average shear bond strength of 9.67 ± 2.84 MPa and 11.21 ± 4.99 MPa were obtained for both metallic and aesthetic brackets, respectively. A Pairwise–Wilcoxon test with Benjamini–Hochberg correction was conducted to determine specific statistical differences between the groups, revealing significant differences based on bracket type and shear bond strength (P < 0.009). Conclusions This study suggested that the shape of bracket meshes influenced shear bond strength.

Objective: To study the influence of bracket base meshes on shear bond strength and observe them using a scanning electron microscopy (SEM) before and after debonding. Methods: Ninety brackets were divided into nine groups of 10 samples each: G1-Alexander, G2-Mini Sprint® Brackets, G3-In-Ovation R CCO,  G4-Gemini SL Self-Ligating Bracket, G5-Classic mini 2G Stylus® , G6-Gemini Metal Brackets, G7-ClarityTM Advanced, G8-Crystall-Ize® , and G9-Ceramic Series Flexx 2G® . Groups G1 to G6 and G7 to G9 consisted of metallic and aesthetic brackets, respectively. Initial photographs of all brackets were taken through SEM at 25X magnification. The brackets were then bonded to premolars using TransbondTM XT, and a shear bond strength test was conducted after 24 hours using an Instron machine at 1 mm/min. After debonding, the bracket meshes were observed using SEM. Results: Before bonding, 72.22% of brackets didn’t present mesh defects, while 27.77% did. SEM analysis revealed that G4 and G5 presented defects in 100%, G7 in 40%, and G8 in 10%. The average shear bond strength of 9.67 ± 2.84 MPa and 11.21 ± 4.99 MPa were obtained for both metallic and aesthetic brackets, respectively. A Pairwise–Wilcoxon test with Benjamini–Hochberg correction was conducted to determine specific statistical differences between the groups, revealing significant differences based on bracket type and shear bond strength (P < 0.009). Conclusions This study suggested that the shape of bracket meshes influenced shear bond strength.

Objective: To study the influence of bracket base meshes on shear bond strength and observe them using a scanning electron microscopy (SEM) before and after debonding. Methods: Ninety brackets were divided into nine groups of 10 samples each: G1-Alexander, G2-Mini Sprint® Brackets, G3-In-Ovation R CCO,  G4-Gemini SL Self-Ligating Bracket, G5-Classic mini 2G Stylus® , G6-Gemini Metal Brackets, G7-ClarityTM Advanced, G8-Crystall-Ize® , and G9-Ceramic Series Flexx 2G® . Groups G1 to G6 and G7 to G9 consisted of metallic and aesthetic brackets, respectively. Initial photographs of all brackets were taken through SEM at 25X magnification. The brackets were then bonded to premolars using TransbondTM XT, and a shear bond strength test was conducted after 24 hours using an Instron machine at 1 mm/min. After debonding, the bracket meshes were observed using SEM. Results: Before bonding, 72.22% of brackets didn’t present mesh defects, while 27.77% did. SEM analysis revealed that G4 and G5 presented defects in 100%, G7 in 40%, and G8 in 10%. The average shear bond strength of 9.67 ± 2.84 MPa and 11.21 ± 4.99 MPa were obtained for both metallic and aesthetic brackets, respectively. A Pairwise–Wilcoxon test with Benjamini–Hochberg correction was conducted to determine specific statistical differences between the groups, revealing significant differences based on bracket type and shear bond strength (P < 0.009). Conclusions This study suggested that the shape of bracket meshes influenced shear bond strength.

Objective: To study the influence of bracket base meshes on shear bond strength and observe them using a scanning electron microscopy (SEM) before and after debonding. Methods: Ninety brackets were divided into nine groups of 10 samples each: G1-Alexander, G2-Mini Sprint® Brackets, G3-In-Ovation R CCO,  G4-Gemini SL Self-Ligating Bracket, G5-Classic mini 2G Stylus® , G6-Gemini Metal Brackets, G7-ClarityTM Advanced, G8-Crystall-Ize® , and G9-Ceramic Series Flexx 2G® . Groups G1 to G6 and G7 to G9 consisted of metallic and aesthetic brackets, respectively. Initial photographs of all brackets were taken through SEM at 25X magnification. The brackets were then bonded to premolars using TransbondTM XT, and a shear bond strength test was conducted after 24 hours using an Instron machine at 1 mm/min. After debonding, the bracket meshes were observed using SEM. Results: Before bonding, 72.22% of brackets didn’t present mesh defects, while 27.77% did. SEM analysis revealed that G4 and G5 presented defects in 100%, G7 in 40%, and G8 in 10%. The average shear bond strength of 9.67 ± 2.84 MPa and 11.21 ± 4.99 MPa were obtained for both metallic and aesthetic brackets, respectively. A Pairwise–Wilcoxon test with Benjamini–Hochberg correction was conducted to determine specific statistical differences between the groups, revealing significant differences based on bracket type and shear bond strength (P < 0.009). Conclusions This study suggested that the shape of bracket meshes influenced shear bond strength.

Objective: To study the influence of bracket base meshes on shear bond strength and observe them using a scanning electron microscopy (SEM) before and after debonding. Methods: Ninety brackets were divided into nine groups of 10 samples each: G1-Alexander, G2-Mini Sprint® Brackets, G3-In-Ovation R CCO,  G4-Gemini SL Self-Ligating Bracket, G5-Classic mini 2G Stylus® , G6-Gemini Metal Brackets, G7-ClarityTM Advanced, G8-Crystall-Ize® , and G9-Ceramic Series Flexx 2G® . Groups G1 to G6 and G7 to G9 consisted of metallic and aesthetic brackets, respectively. Initial photographs of all brackets were taken through SEM at 25X magnification. The brackets were then bonded to premolars using TransbondTM XT, and a shear bond strength test was conducted after 24 hours using an Instron machine at 1 mm/min. After debonding, the bracket meshes were observed using SEM. Results: Before bonding, 72.22% of brackets didn’t present mesh defects, while 27.77% did. SEM analysis revealed that G4 and G5 presented defects in 100%, G7 in 40%, and G8 in 10%. The average shear bond strength of 9.67 ± 2.84 MPa and 11.21 ± 4.99 MPa were obtained for both metallic and aesthetic brackets, respectively. A Pairwise–Wilcoxon test with Benjamini–Hochberg correction was conducted to determine specific statistical differences between the groups, revealing significant differences based on bracket type and shear bond strength (P < 0.009). Conclusions This study suggested that the shape of bracket meshes influenced shear bond strength.