No abstract available.

No abstract available.

No abstract available.

No abstract available.
Suicide, Attempted*

No abstract available.
Chromosome Aberrations*

The diagnostic value of GHRH in assessing GH secretion in biochemical GH sufficient short children was examined. GHRH (1microgram/kg i.v bolus) was given to three groups (upslope, trough, downslope) arbitrarily classified according to the basal pulsatile GH secretory pattern before GHRH administration. Cmax following GHRH administration were variable and overlapping. Two children in downslope group, three children in trough group, and one child in upslope group showed subnormal GH responses to GHRH administration despite of normal GH response to more than two classical GH provocative tests (Fig.1). The time of maximal GH response after GHRH administration (Tmax) in upslope group was significantly faster than those in other two groups (Fig.2). There was a highly significant correlation between AUC and Cmax (p<0.001) after GHRH administration (Fig.3) which suggests that AUC or Cmax can be used for parameters of GH response to GHRH each other. The AUC and Cmax after GHRH administration between three groups were significantly different (2764+/-579.1ng/ml min, 52.6 ng/ml, respectively in upslope group; 1645+/-383.9ng/ml min, 37.7+/-9.4ng/ml, respectively in downslope group; 1098+/-150.2ng/ml min, 26.3+/-4.5ng/ml, respectively in trough group)(p<0.005) (Fig.4, Table 1). In conclusion, GH responses to GHRH adminstration could be variable according to the basal GH secretory rhythm. Therefore, we should be cautious in interpreting the GH response to GHRH to evaluate the GH secretory capacity because subnormal GH response to GHRH administration could be observed even if normal GH response to classical GH provocative tests. In addition, the classification of these arbitary three groups (upslope, trough, and downslope) is remained to defined so as to promote the diagnostic value of GHRH in GH deficiency.
Area Under Curve ; Child* ; Classification ; Growth Hormone* ; Humans

The use of alginate impression materials today is prevalent because of its efficiency and simplicity in clinical settings. Unfortunately, the simplicity of the procedure tends to lull the dentist into a sense of well-being, and lead him into using careless or sloppy technique. Alginate impression materials are used to fabricate diagnostic and preliminary casts, and the final cast. Incorrect use of this material is known to affect the accuracy of the final prosthesis. The purpose of this study was to compare the effect of different mixing methods of alginate impression material and tray adhesive on the accuracy of the stone cast produced by each method. A total of 30 stone casts were produced by using 3 different types of mixing methods (10 stone cast for each mixing method, respectively) The first method utilized an automatic-mixing machine to mix alginate while the second method was carried out manually, strictly following manufacturer's instructions. The third method also involved manual mixing, but did not follow the manufacturer's instructions and was done in a random fashion. Also, 20 additional stone casts were produced by using alginate with or without tray adhesives were included in the study to evaluate effects of tray adhesives on the accuracy of alginate impression. 10 stone casts were produced by adding tray adhesives to the interior surface of the impression tray prior to taking the impression. The other 10 excluded this step. A total of 50 stone casts were analyzed by the three-dimensional measuring machine to measure and compare the dimensional changes of the impression material of each group. The results are as follows. 1. No significant difference was found between the automatic mixing group and the manually-mixing group(p>0.05). 2. For the group that followed manufacturer's instructions, less dimensional changes were recorded than the group that didn't in measuring distance d4(p<0.05) 3. The group that used tray adhesives showed less dimensional changes(p<0.05). The findings revealed that mechanical methods of mixing alginate impression materials had little influence on dimensional changes. However, it is proven that following manufacturers instructions in alginate impression taking is an important step in acquiring accurate impressions and tray adhesives may play an important role in enhancing the results.
Adhesives* ; Dentists ; Humans ; Prostheses and Implants

No abstract available.
Electroencephalography*

No abstract available.
Humans ; Outpatients*

This study aimed to differentiate gastric mucosal lesions such as the inflammatory gastric mucosa, gastric dysplasia and adenocarcinoma, using the CEA(carcinoembryonic antigen), AgNORS(Nucleolar organizer regions) and PCNA(proliferating cell nuclear antigen) stains. The tissue samples were taken from 30 cases of inflammatory gastric mucosa (19 gastritis and 11 regenerative hyperplasia), 28 cases of gastric dysplasia (9 mild dysplasia, 10 moderate dysplasia and 9 severe dysplasia) and 21 cases of gastric adenocarcinoma. The CEA was expressed in 16 of 21 adenocarcinomas(76%), but in neither inflammatory nor dysplastic gastric mucosae. The mean number of AgNORs per nucleus was 1.54 in inflammatory gastric mucosa, 1.80 in gastric dysplasia, and 1.88 in adenocarcinoma. The number of AgNORs was increased in dysplasia and adenocarcinoma compared to the inflammatory gastric mucosa without statistical significance. The percentage of the PCN A positive cells was 35.2% in inflammatory gastric mucosa, 44.1 % in gastric dysplasia, and 69.0% in gastric adenocarcinoma. The positivity of the PCNA was significantly increased in adenocarcinoma compared to the inflammatory gastric mucosa and dysplasia. In conclusion, the frequency of the CEA positive staining was increased in the gastric adenocarcinoma, and so CEA stain will be able to provide an additive method for the differential diagnosis between severe dysplasia and adenocarcinoma of the stomach.
Diagnosis, Differential ; Adenocarcinoma