Journal:

Article Title: Opposite Effects of Glucagon and Insulin on Compensation for Spectacle Lenses in Chicks

doi: 10.1167/iovs.08-1708

Figure Lengend Snippet: The effects of insulin on changes in paired eyes in ocular length, scleral GAG synthesis, and choroidal thickness. (B-G) Ocular length (measured values) as a function of time (in days) are shown for each dose under the bar-chart showing the changes in paired eyes over the 3-day duration of the experiments (all y-axes are identical). Insulin increased the rate of ocular elongation in eyes wearing positive lenses (panels on left) and in eyes not wearing lenses (panels on right), as well as increasing scleral GAG synthesis in eyes wearing positive lenses (I). (H) Insulin also reduced choroidal thickness in eyes wearing positive lenses. Statistics as in Fig. 1. The dotted line shows the normal rate of ocular elongation (A) and choroidal thickness (H) over 3 days without injections. ‡: injections with a 35-gauge needle.

Article Snippet: We either injected 20 μL through a 26-gauge needle (Hamilton Company, Reno, NV) or 2 to 7.4 μL through a 35-gauge needle (NanoFil syringe, World Precision Instruments, Inc., Sarasota, FL); see for details.

Techniques:

Journal:

Article Title: Opposite Effects of Glucagon and Insulin on Compensation for Spectacle Lenses in Chicks

doi: 10.1167/iovs.08-1708

Figure Lengend Snippet: The interaction between glucagon- and insulin-dependent mechanisms on choroidal thickness (A, B), choroidal GAG synthesis (C), ocular length (D, E), and scleral GAG synthesis (F). Although insulin alone (at 0.01 U, 68 pmol) did not reduce choroidal thickness, it completely blocked the increase in both choroidal thickness (B: compare G vs. G+I) and choroidal GAG synthesis (C) caused by glucagon. Conversely, although glucagon by itself did not affect normal ocular elongation at either dose used, at the high dose it reduced the effect of insulin on the rate of ocular elongation by half (E: compare G+I vs. I). Glucagon also decreased the effect of insulin the rate of scleral GAG synthesis (F: compare G+I vs. I). Statistics as in Fig. 1. ‡: eyes injected with a 35-gauge needle.

Article Snippet: We either injected 20 μL through a 26-gauge needle (Hamilton Company, Reno, NV) or 2 to 7.4 μL through a 35-gauge needle (NanoFil syringe, World Precision Instruments, Inc., Sarasota, FL); see for details.

Techniques: Injection

Journal: Clinical, Cosmetic and Investigational Dentistry

Article Title: Current practicality of nanotechnology in dentistry. Part 1: Focus on nanocomposite restoratives and biomimetics

doi:

Figure Lengend Snippet: In vitro studies comparing physical properties of nanocomposite and other resin-based composite restoratives, 2004 – present

Article Snippet: Mahmoud et al , USPHS modified Ryge criteria; two independent examiners , 35 , 140 , Admira (ormocer ® ) Tetric EvoCeram (nanohybrid) FiltekTM Supreme (nanofill) Tetric Ceram (microhybrid) , After two years, no statistically significant differences in clinical performance were detected ( P > 0.05; Friedman and/or Wilcoxon signed rank tests) among ormocer ® , nanohybrid, and nanofill RBCs (all had acceptable clinical performance similar to microhybrid). One ormocer and one microhybrid composite restoration had failed after two years. No failures observed in nanohybrid or nanofill..

Techniques: In Vitro, Comparison, Produced, Stripping Membranes

Journal: Clinical, Cosmetic and Investigational Dentistry

Article Title: Current practicality of nanotechnology in dentistry. Part 1: Focus on nanocomposite restoratives and biomimetics

doi:

Figure Lengend Snippet: Clinical studies comparing nanocomposite and other resin-based composite restoratives

Article Snippet: Mahmoud et al , USPHS modified Ryge criteria; two independent examiners , 35 , 140 , Admira (ormocer ® ) Tetric EvoCeram (nanohybrid) FiltekTM Supreme (nanofill) Tetric Ceram (microhybrid) , After two years, no statistically significant differences in clinical performance were detected ( P > 0.05; Friedman and/or Wilcoxon signed rank tests) among ormocer ® , nanohybrid, and nanofill RBCs (all had acceptable clinical performance similar to microhybrid). One ormocer and one microhybrid composite restoration had failed after two years. No failures observed in nanohybrid or nanofill..

Techniques: Modification, Adhesive