Search

As the environmental issues of organic dyes pollutants are becoming more and more severe, the need to develop emerging technologies to effectively eliminate pollutants is becoming increasingly urgent. In this work, the perovskite-type [Formula: see text]/[Formula: see text] composites were successfully synthesized by a simple ultrasonic water bath. The obtained composite was characterized by various techniques such as XRD, FTIR, SEM and UV-Vis. The photocatalytic performance of the composite was investigated by degrading rhodamine B under 25 W and 254 nm UV irradiation. Moreover, we investigated the optimum preparation conditions of [Formula: see text]/[Formula: see text] photocatalyst with a [Formula: see text] to [Formula: see text] mass ratio of 1:1 and a temperature of [Formula: see text]C for 2 h. In addition, the operating parameters of the photocatalytic reaction were systematically studied such as the initial concentration of solution, catalyst dosage and solution initial pH. The results showed that the photocatalytic decolorization rate of rhodamine B could reach 97.5% by adding 1 g/L [Formula: see text]/[Formula: see text] photocatalyst to 100 mL of 20 mg/L rhodamine B solution at pH 2 for 2 h. What’s more, the [Formula: see text]/[Formula: see text] catalyst was shown to be reusable and stable by cycling tests, and the use of active species trapping agents determined the predominance of •[Formula: see text] and [Formula: see text] in the reaction system. Finally, the possible mechanism of enhancement of photocatalytic activity was initially discussed.

Objective: To compare the anchorage effects of the implants and the headgear for patients with anterior teeth retraction in terms of incisor retraction, anchorage loss, inclination of maxillary incisors, positional change of maxillary basal bone, and treatment duration. Materials and Methods: An electronic search for relative randomized controlled trials (RCTs) prospective and retrospective controlled trials was done through the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), PubMed, Embase, Medline, and CNKI, regardless of language of study. Study selection, methodological quality assessment, and data extraction were performed by two reviewers independently. Meta-analysis was performed when possible; otherwise descriptive assessment was done. Results: The search yielded 35 articles, of which eight met the inclusion criteria and were categorized into five groups according to types of intervention. For the midpalatal implant, the anchorage loss was much less than for the headgear group, with insignificant differences in terms of anterior teeth retraction, maxillary incisor inclination, positional change of basal bone, and treatment duration. For the mini-implant, greater anterior teeth retraction and less anchorage loss were demonstrated, with inconsistent results for the other measures. For the onplant, less anchorage loss was noted, with insignificant differences for the other measures. Conclusions: The skeletal anchorage of the midpalatal implant, mini-implant, and onplant offer better alternatives to headgear, with less anchorage loss and more anterior teeth retraction. There were inconsistent results from the included studies in terms of maxillary incisor inclination, positional change of maxillary basal bone, and treatment duration. More qualified RCTs are required to provide clear recommendations.

Objective: To assess the efficacy of chincup therapy for mandibular growth retardation in early orthopedic treatment of Class III malocclusion. Materials and Methods: An electronic search for articles reporting randomized clinical trials, controlled clinical trials, and cohort studies testing the efficacy of chincup appliance for Class III malocclusion published up to the present was done through four databases: Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; to March 2010), MEDLINE (1950–March 2010), EMBASE (1980–March 2010), and CBM (1978–March 2010). Study quality assessment and data extraction were done by two reviewers independently. Meta-analysis was done with the assistance of Revman 5.01. Results: The search resulted in 50 articles. After selection following the established criteria, four cohort studies qualified for the final review analysis. The results showed that chincup therapy decreased SNB angle and increased ANB angle; the total pooled weighted mean difference values (95%...

Background Acid etching of tooth surfaces to promote the bonding of orthodontic attachments to the enamel has been a routine procedure in orthodontic treatment since the 1960s. Various types of orthodontic etchants and etching techniques have been introduced in the past five decades. Although a large amount of information on this topic has been published, there is a significant lack of consensus regarding the clinical effects of different dental etchants and etching techniques. Objectives To compare the effects of different dental etchants and different etching techniques for the bonding of fixed orthodontic appliances. Search methods We searched the following electronic databases: the Cochrane Oral Health Group's Trials Register (to 8 March 2013), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library 2013, Issue 2), MEDLINE via OVID (to 8 March 2013), EMBASE via OVID (to 8 March 2013), Chinese Biomedical Literature Database (to 12 March 2011), the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (to 8 March 2013) and the National Institutes of Health Clinical Trials Registry (to 8 March 2013). A handsearching group updated the handsearching of journals, carried out as part of the Cochrane Worldwide Handsearching Programme, to the most current issue. There were no restrictions regarding language or date of publication. Selection criteria Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing different etching materials, or different etching techniques using the same etchants, for the bonding of fixed orthodontic brackets to incisors, canines and premolars in children and adults. Data collection and analysis Two review authors extracted data and assessed the risk of bias of included studies independently and in duplicate. We resolved disagreements by discussion among the review team. We contacted the corresponding authors of the included studies to obtain additional information, if necessary. Main results We included 13 studies randomizing 417 participants with 7184 teeth/brackets. We assessed two studies (15%) as being at low risk of bias, 10 studies (77%) as being at high risk of bias and one study (8%) as being at unclear risk of bias. Self etching primers (SEPs) versus conventional etchants Eleven studies compared the effects of SEPs with conventional etchants. Only five of these studies (three of split-mouth design and two of parallel design) reported data at the participant level, with the remaining studies reporting at the tooth level, thus ignoring clustering/the paired nature of the data. A meta-analysis of these five studies, with follow-up ranging from 5 to 37 months, provided low-quality evidence that was insufficient to determine whether or not there is a difference in bond failure rate between SEPs and convention etchants (risk ratio 1.14; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.75 to 1.73; 221 participants). The uncertainty in the CI includes both no effect and appreciable benefit and harm. Subgroup analysis did not show a difference between split-mouth and parallel studies. There were no data available to allow assessment of the outcomes: decalcification, participant satisfaction and cost-effectiveness. One study reported decalcification, but only at the tooth level. SEPs versus SEPs Two studies compared two different SEPs. Both studies reported bond failure rate, with one of the studies also reporting decalcification. However, as both studies reported outcomes only at the tooth level, there were no data available to evaluate the superiority of any of the SEPs over the others investigated with regards to any of the outcomes of this review. We did not find any eligible studies evaluating different etching materials (e.g. phosphoric acid, polyacrylic acid, maleic acid), concentrations or etching times. Authors' conclusions We found low-quality evidence that was insufficient to conclude whether or not there is a difference in bond failure rate between SEPs and conventional etching systems when bonding fixed orthodontic appliances over a 5- to 37-month follow-up. Insufficient data were also available to allow any conclusions to be formed regarding the superiority of SEPs or conventional etching for the outcomes: decalcification, participant satisfaction and cost-effectiveness, or regarding the superiority of different etching materials, concentrations or etching times, or of any one SEP over another. Further well-designed RCTs on this topic are needed to provide more evidence in order to answer these clinical questions.

BACKGROUND:Secondary alveolar bone grafting has been widely used to reconstruct alveolar cleft. However, there is still some controversy.OBJECTIVES:To compare the effectiveness and safety of different secondary bone grafting methods.SEARCH STRATEGY:The final electronic and handsearches were carried out on 11 February 2011, and included the Cochrane Oral Health Group's Trials Register, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, MEDLINE, EMBASE, Chinese Biomedical Literature Database and WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform. All the Chinese professional journals in the oral and dental field were handsearched and conference proceedings consulted. There was no language or time restriction.SELECTION CRITERIA:Only randomized clinical trials were selected. Patients with the diagnosis of cleft lip and alveolar process only, unilateral cleft lip and palate and bilateral cleft lip and palate involving the alveolar process and greater than 5 years of age were included.DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS:Two review authors extracted data and assessed the quality of included studies independently. Disagreement between the two review authors was resolved by discussion in the review team. The first authors of the included studies were contacted for additional information, if necessary.MAIN RESULTS:Two of 582 potential studies met the inclusion criteria and were included. One trial compared alveolar bone grafting using artificial materials (InFuse bone graft substitute impregnated with BMP-2) with a traditional iliac graft. The other trial investigated the application of fibrin glue to the bone graft. Both trials were small with 21 and 27 patients and were assessed as being at high risk of bias. Any apparent differences between the interventions for outcomes in either study must therefore be treated with great caution and are not highlighted here.AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS:Due to the high level of risk of bias in the two included trials there is insufficient evidence to conclude that one intervention is superior to another.