BackgroundOne of the main objectives of stroke rehabilitation is to alleviate post-stroke spasticity. Over the recent years, many studies have explored the potential benefits of whole-body vibration (WBV) treatment for post-stroke spasticity, but it is still controversial.ObjectiveThe current study aims to assess the efficacy and safety of WBV for post-stroke spasticity and determine the appropriate application situation.MethodsFrom their establishment until August 2022, the following databases were searched: PubMed, Web of Science, Embase, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), Medline, China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI), and Wanfang. Only randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that were published in either English or Chinese were taken into consideration. We independently filtered the research, gathered the data from the studies, and evaluated the research quality (Cochrane RoB tool) and the overall evidence quality (GRADE). Rev Man 5.4 software was utilized to conduct statistical analysis.ResultsIn this analysis, 11 RCTs with 475 patients that reported on the effectiveness of WBV therapy for post-stroke spasticity were taken into account. Compared to the control groups, the results revealed that WBV combined with conventional rehabilitation at a vibration frequency lower than 20 Hz (SMD = −0.58, 95% CI: −0.98 to −0.19, P = 0.004) was more effective in relieving upper (SMD = −0.53, 95% CI: −1.04 to 0.03, P = 0.03) and lower limb spasticity (SMD = −0.21, 95% CI: −0.40 to −0.01, P = 0.04); similarly, it was superior for patients aged under 60 years (SMD = −0.41, 95% CI: −0.66 to −0.17, P = 0.0008) with acute and subacute stroke (SMD = −0.39, 95% CI: −0.68 to −0.09, P = 0.01). The valid vibration for reducing spasticity was found to last for 10 min (SMD = −0.41, 95% CI: −0.75 to −0.07, P = 0.02). None of the included studies revealed any serious adverse impact.ConclusionModerate-quality evidence demonstrated when WBV was used as an adjuvant, vibration <20 Hz for 10 min was effective and secure in treating upper and lower limb spasticity in patients with acute and subacute stroke under the age of 60 years.Systematic review registrationhttps://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/, identifier: CRD42022293951.

No abstract

Purpose This study aimed to evaluate the influence of different types of restorative materials and resin cements on the stress distribution in the regions of the restoration, cement layer and dental remnant in endodontically treated posterior endocrowns. Methods A 3D finite element analysis (FEA) model of the first mandibular molar that was restored with an endocrown designed by computer-aided design (CAD) software was generated. Three kinds of restorative materials (Vita Enamic (VE), IPS e.max CAD (EMX) and Grandio blocs (GR)) and two types of cementing materials (NX3 and Maxcem Elite Chroma (MX)) were analysed with such a model. The food layer was also designed before vertical (600 N) forces were applied to simulate physiological masticatory conditions. Thermal expansion was used to simulate the polymerization shrinkage effects of cement layers. The results were obtained by colorimetric graphs of the maximum principal stress in the restoration and tooth remnant. The failure risk of the cement layer was also calculated based on the normal stress. Results The elastic modulus was positively correlated with the tensile stress peak values in the restoration, mainly at the intaglio surface. However, in the cervical enamel and cement layer, restorative material with a higher elastic modulus generated lower peak stress values. The cement with a higher elastic modulus resulted in higher stress peak values inside the cement layer. The combination of EMX (restorative material) and NX3 (cement material) in the cement layer resulted in the lowest failure risk. Significance The ceramic material EMX with a higher elastic modulus appeared to be more effective at protecting the cement layer and residual enamel tissue. Based on the analysis of the failure risk of the cement layer, the combination of EMX and NX3 was recommended as an optional material for endocrowns for endodontically treated posterior teeth.

ObjectiveIn this study, we aimed to investigate the effects of non-invasive brain stimulation (NIBS) on cognitive and motor functions in patients with multiple sclerosis (pwMS).MethodsA literature search was performed in the Cochrane Library, Embase, PubMed, Web of Science, Medline, CNKI, and Wan fang. The time interval used for database construction was up to December 2022, and the language was not limited. The collected trials were subsequently screened, the data were extracted, the quality was evaluated, and the effect sizes were computed using STATA/MP Version 13 for outcome analysis. Standard mean difference (SMD) and 95% confidence interval (CI) were calculated for domain of interest.ResultsIn total, 17 articles that examined 364 patients with multiple sclerosis were included in this analysis. Non-invasive brain stimulation did not improve the overall cognitive function [SMD = 0.18, 95% CI (−0.32, 0.69), P = 0.475] but helped improve motor function in patients [SMD = 0.52, 95% CI (0.19, 0.85), P = 0.002]. Moreover, this study specifically indicated that non-invasive brain stimulation improved alerting [SMD = 0.68, 95% CI (0.09, 1.26), P = 0.02], whereas non-invasive brain stimulation intervention improved motor function in patients aged <45 years [SMD = 0.67, 95% CI (0.23, 1.10), P = 0.003] and in patients with expanded disability status scale scores (EDSS) <3.5 [SMD = 0.82, 95% CI (0.22, 1.42), P = 0.007]. In particular, NIBS contributed to the improvement of spasticity in pwMS [SMD = 0.68, 95% CI (0.13, 1.23), P = 0.015].ConclusionThese results of this present study provide evidence that non-invasive brain stimulation could improve alertness in pwMS. Furthermore, NIBS may help pwMS with motor function and those who are under 45 years of age or with EDSS < 3.5 improve their motor function. For the therapeutic use of NIBS, we recommend applying transcranial magnetic stimulation as an intervention and located on the motor cortex M1 according to the subgroup analysis of motor function. These findings warrant verification.Systematic review registrationhttps://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/, identifier CRD42022301012.