Objective: Miniscrews are commonly utilized as temporary anchorage devices (TADs) in cases of maxillary protrusion and premolar extraction. This study aimed to investigate the effects and potential side effects of two conventional miniscrew configurations on the maxillary incisors. Methods: Eighty-two adult patients with maxillary dentoalveolar protrusion who had undergone bilateral first premolar extraction were retrospectively divided into three groups: non-TAD, two posterior miniscrews only (P-TADs), and two anterior and two posterior miniscrews combined (AP-TADs). Cone-beam computed tomography was used to evaluate the maxillary central incisors (U1). Results: The APTADs group had significantly greater U1 intrusion (1.99 ± 2.37 mm, n = 50) and less retroclination (1.70° ± 8.80°) compared to the P-TADs (–0.07 ± 1.65 mm and 9.45° ± 10.68°, n = 60) and non-TAD group (0.30 ± 1.61 mm and 1.91° ± 9.39°, n = 54).However, the AP-TADs group suffered from significantly greater apical root resorption (ARR) of U1 (2.69 ± 1.38 mm) than the P-TADs (1.63 ± 1.46 mm) and non-TAD group (0.89 ± 0.97 mm). Notably, the incidence of grade IV ARR was 16.6% in the AP-TADs group, significantly higher than the rates observed in the P-TADs (6.7%) and non-TAD (1.9%) groups. Multiple regression analysis revealed that after excluding tooth movement factors, the AP-TADs configuration resulted in an additional 0.5 mm of ARR compared with the P-TADs group. Conclusions In cases of maxillary protrusion and premolar extraction, the use of combined anterior and posterior miniscrews enhances incisor intrusion and minimizes torque loss of the maxillary incisors. However, this approach results in more severe ARR, likely due to the increased apical movement and composite force exerted.

Objective: Miniscrews are commonly utilized as temporary anchorage devices (TADs) in cases of maxillary protrusion and premolar extraction. This study aimed to investigate the effects and potential side effects of two conventional miniscrew configurations on the maxillary incisors. Methods: Eighty-two adult patients with maxillary dentoalveolar protrusion who had undergone bilateral first premolar extraction were retrospectively divided into three groups: non-TAD, two posterior miniscrews only (P-TADs), and two anterior and two posterior miniscrews combined (AP-TADs). Cone-beam computed tomography was used to evaluate the maxillary central incisors (U1). Results: The APTADs group had significantly greater U1 intrusion (1.99 ± 2.37 mm, n = 50) and less retroclination (1.70° ± 8.80°) compared to the P-TADs (–0.07 ± 1.65 mm and 9.45° ± 10.68°, n = 60) and non-TAD group (0.30 ± 1.61 mm and 1.91° ± 9.39°, n = 54).However, the AP-TADs group suffered from significantly greater apical root resorption (ARR) of U1 (2.69 ± 1.38 mm) than the P-TADs (1.63 ± 1.46 mm) and non-TAD group (0.89 ± 0.97 mm). Notably, the incidence of grade IV ARR was 16.6% in the AP-TADs group, significantly higher than the rates observed in the P-TADs (6.7%) and non-TAD (1.9%) groups. Multiple regression analysis revealed that after excluding tooth movement factors, the AP-TADs configuration resulted in an additional 0.5 mm of ARR compared with the P-TADs group. Conclusions In cases of maxillary protrusion and premolar extraction, the use of combined anterior and posterior miniscrews enhances incisor intrusion and minimizes torque loss of the maxillary incisors. However, this approach results in more severe ARR, likely due to the increased apical movement and composite force exerted.

Objective: Miniscrews are commonly utilized as temporary anchorage devices (TADs) in cases of maxillary protrusion and premolar extraction. This study aimed to investigate the effects and potential side effects of two conventional miniscrew configurations on the maxillary incisors. Methods: Eighty-two adult patients with maxillary dentoalveolar protrusion who had undergone bilateral first premolar extraction were retrospectively divided into three groups: non-TAD, two posterior miniscrews only (P-TADs), and two anterior and two posterior miniscrews combined (AP-TADs). Cone-beam computed tomography was used to evaluate the maxillary central incisors (U1). Results: The APTADs group had significantly greater U1 intrusion (1.99 ± 2.37 mm, n = 50) and less retroclination (1.70° ± 8.80°) compared to the P-TADs (–0.07 ± 1.65 mm and 9.45° ± 10.68°, n = 60) and non-TAD group (0.30 ± 1.61 mm and 1.91° ± 9.39°, n = 54).However, the AP-TADs group suffered from significantly greater apical root resorption (ARR) of U1 (2.69 ± 1.38 mm) than the P-TADs (1.63 ± 1.46 mm) and non-TAD group (0.89 ± 0.97 mm). Notably, the incidence of grade IV ARR was 16.6% in the AP-TADs group, significantly higher than the rates observed in the P-TADs (6.7%) and non-TAD (1.9%) groups. Multiple regression analysis revealed that after excluding tooth movement factors, the AP-TADs configuration resulted in an additional 0.5 mm of ARR compared with the P-TADs group. Conclusions In cases of maxillary protrusion and premolar extraction, the use of combined anterior and posterior miniscrews enhances incisor intrusion and minimizes torque loss of the maxillary incisors. However, this approach results in more severe ARR, likely due to the increased apical movement and composite force exerted.

Objective: Miniscrews are commonly utilized as temporary anchorage devices (TADs) in cases of maxillary protrusion and premolar extraction. This study aimed to investigate the effects and potential side effects of two conventional miniscrew configurations on the maxillary incisors. Methods: Eighty-two adult patients with maxillary dentoalveolar protrusion who had undergone bilateral first premolar extraction were retrospectively divided into three groups: non-TAD, two posterior miniscrews only (P-TADs), and two anterior and two posterior miniscrews combined (AP-TADs). Cone-beam computed tomography was used to evaluate the maxillary central incisors (U1). Results: The APTADs group had significantly greater U1 intrusion (1.99 ± 2.37 mm, n = 50) and less retroclination (1.70° ± 8.80°) compared to the P-TADs (–0.07 ± 1.65 mm and 9.45° ± 10.68°, n = 60) and non-TAD group (0.30 ± 1.61 mm and 1.91° ± 9.39°, n = 54).However, the AP-TADs group suffered from significantly greater apical root resorption (ARR) of U1 (2.69 ± 1.38 mm) than the P-TADs (1.63 ± 1.46 mm) and non-TAD group (0.89 ± 0.97 mm). Notably, the incidence of grade IV ARR was 16.6% in the AP-TADs group, significantly higher than the rates observed in the P-TADs (6.7%) and non-TAD (1.9%) groups. Multiple regression analysis revealed that after excluding tooth movement factors, the AP-TADs configuration resulted in an additional 0.5 mm of ARR compared with the P-TADs group. Conclusions In cases of maxillary protrusion and premolar extraction, the use of combined anterior and posterior miniscrews enhances incisor intrusion and minimizes torque loss of the maxillary incisors. However, this approach results in more severe ARR, likely due to the increased apical movement and composite force exerted.

Objective: Miniscrews are commonly utilized as temporary anchorage devices (TADs) in cases of maxillary protrusion and premolar extraction. This study aimed to investigate the effects and potential side effects of two conventional miniscrew configurations on the maxillary incisors. Methods: Eighty-two adult patients with maxillary dentoalveolar protrusion who had undergone bilateral first premolar extraction were retrospectively divided into three groups: non-TAD, two posterior miniscrews only (P-TADs), and two anterior and two posterior miniscrews combined (AP-TADs). Cone-beam computed tomography was used to evaluate the maxillary central incisors (U1). Results: The APTADs group had significantly greater U1 intrusion (1.99 ± 2.37 mm, n = 50) and less retroclination (1.70° ± 8.80°) compared to the P-TADs (–0.07 ± 1.65 mm and 9.45° ± 10.68°, n = 60) and non-TAD group (0.30 ± 1.61 mm and 1.91° ± 9.39°, n = 54).However, the AP-TADs group suffered from significantly greater apical root resorption (ARR) of U1 (2.69 ± 1.38 mm) than the P-TADs (1.63 ± 1.46 mm) and non-TAD group (0.89 ± 0.97 mm). Notably, the incidence of grade IV ARR was 16.6% in the AP-TADs group, significantly higher than the rates observed in the P-TADs (6.7%) and non-TAD (1.9%) groups. Multiple regression analysis revealed that after excluding tooth movement factors, the AP-TADs configuration resulted in an additional 0.5 mm of ARR compared with the P-TADs group. Conclusions In cases of maxillary protrusion and premolar extraction, the use of combined anterior and posterior miniscrews enhances incisor intrusion and minimizes torque loss of the maxillary incisors. However, this approach results in more severe ARR, likely due to the increased apical movement and composite force exerted.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the safety and effectiveness of robot-assisted percutaneous coronary intervention (R-PCI) compared to traditional manual percutaneous coronary intervention (M-PCI). METHODS: This prospective, multicenter, randomized controlled, non-inferior clinical trial enrolled patients with coronary heart disease who met the inclusion criteria and had indications for elective percutaneous coronary intervention. Participants were randomly assigned to either the R-PCI group or the M-PCI group. Primary endpoints were clinical and technical success rates. Clinical success was defined as visually estimated residual post-percutaneous coronary intervention stenosis < 30% with no 30-day major adverse cardiac events. Technical success in the R-PCI group was defined as successful completion of percutaneous coronary intervention using the ETcath200 robot-assisted system, without conversion to M-PCI in the event of a guidewire or balloon/stent catheter that was unable to cross the vessel or was poorly supported by the catheter. Secondary endpoints included total procedure time, percutaneous coronary intervention procedure time, fluoroscopy time, contrast volume, operator radiation exposure, air kerma, and dose-area product. RESULTS: The trial enrolled 152 patients (R-PCI: 73 patients, M-PCI: 79 patients). Lesions were predominantly B2/C type (73.6%). Both groups achieved 100% clinical success rate. No major adverse cardiac events occurred during the 30-day follow-up. The R-PCI group had a technical success rate of 100%. The R-PCI group had longer total procedure and fluoroscopy times, but lower operator radiation exposure. The percutaneous coronary intervention procedure time, contrast volume, air kerma, and dose-area product were similar between the two groups. CONCLUSIONS For certain complex lesions, performing percutaneous coronary intervention using the ETcath200 robot-assisted system is safe and effective and does not result in conversion to M-PCI.

Traumatic fractures and stress fractures are common orthopedic diseases,and there is great potential in researching bone turnover,repair,and promotion of fracture healing.Basic medical experiments often use animal models of long bone fractures in limbs to study the mechanisms of various interventions on fracture healing.Fracture healing is a complex process influenced by multiple factors and involves multiple molecules and pathways.Therefore,to explore the mechanisms more deeply,accelerate the translation of results,and improve the clinical efficacy,it is particularly important to choose the appropriate animal fracture modeling methods in experimental research.Based on this,this paper conducts a literature review of animal species and modeling methods commonly used for long bone fracture models in experimental research.It summarizes five methods:bone defect method,physical impact method,mechanical bending method,open osteotomy method,and drilling method.A side-by-side comparison of their advantages,disadvantages,and scope of application is made,aiming to provide suitable fracture models for studyingthe mechanisms of fracture healing interventions.

Objective To explore the efficacy and safety of recombinant human anti-severe acute respiratory syn-drome coronavirus 2(anti-SARS-CoV-2)monoclonal antibody injection(F61 injection)in the treatment of patients with coronavirus disease 2019(COVID-19)combined with renal damage.Methods Patients with COVID-19 and renal damage who visited the PLA General Hospital from January to February 2023 were selected.Subjects were randomly divided into two groups.Control group was treated with conventional anti-COVID-19 therapy,while trial group was treated with conventional anti-COVID-19 therapy combined with F61 injection.A 15-day follow-up was conducted after drug administration.Clinical symptoms,laboratory tests,electrocardiogram,and chest CT of pa-tients were performed to analyze the efficacy and safety of F61 injection.Results Twelve subjects(7 in trial group and 5 in control group)were included in study.Neither group had any clinical progression or death cases.The ave-rage time for negative conversion of nucleic acid of SARS-CoV-2 in control group and trial group were 3.2 days and 1.57 days(P=0.046),respectively.The scores of COVID-19 related target symptom in the trial group on the 3rd and 5th day after medication were both lower than those of the control group(both P＜0.05).According to the clinical staging and World Health Organization 10-point graded disease progression scale,both groups of subjects improved but didn't show statistical differences(P＞0.05).For safety,trial group didn't present any infusion-re-lated adverse event.Subjects in both groups demonstrated varying degrees of elevated blood glucose,elevated urine glucose,elevated urobilinogen,positive urine casts,and cardiac arrhythmia,but the differences were not statistica-lly significant(all P＞0.05).Conclusion F61 injection has initially demonstrated safety and clinical benefit in trea-ting patients with COVID-19 combined with renal damage.As the domestically produced drug,it has good clinical accessibility and may provide more options for clinical practice.

Ankylosing spondylitis (AS) combined with lower cervical fracture is often categorized into unstable fracture, with a high incidence of neurological injury and a high rate of disability and morbidity. As factors such as shoulder occlusion may affect the accuracy of X-ray imaging diagnosis, it is often easily misdiagnosed at the primary diagnosis. Non-operative treatment has complications such as bone nonunion and the possibility of secondary neurological damage, while the timing, access and choice of surgical treatment are still controversial. Currently, there are no clinical practice guidelines for the treatment of AS combined with lower cervical fracture with or without dislocation. To this end, the Spinal Trauma Group of Orthopedics Branch of Chinese Medical Doctor Association organized experts to formulate Clinical guidelines for the treatment of ankylosing spondylitis combined with lower cervical fracture in adults ( version 2024) in accordance with the principles of evidence-based medicine, scientificity and practicality, in which 11 recommendations were put forward in terms of the diagnosis, imaging evaluation, typing and treatment, etc, to provide guidance for the diagnosis and treatment of AS combined with lower cervical fracture.