Hyfl A

Objective: To observe the effects of Huannao Yicong Formula (, HYF) on learning and memory and it's regulating effect on γ-secretase related anterior pharynx defective 1 (APH-1), presenilin enhancer-2 (PEN-2) signaling pathway, so as to discuss and further clarify the mechanism of HYF on Alzheimer's disease. Methods: Sixty APP/PS1 transgenic mice, randomly allocated into 4 groups, the model group, the donepezil group (0.65 mg/kg), HYF low-dose group (HYF-L, 5.46 g/kg) and HYF high-dose group (HYF-H, 10.92 g/kg), 15 for each group. Another 15 C57BL/6J mice with the same age and same genetic background were allocated into the control group, proper dosage of drugs or distilled water were given by intragastric administration once daily for 12 weeks. After 12 weeks of administration, the learning and memory abilities of mice in each group was evaluated by the morris water maze test, amyloid precursor protein (APP), Aβ1-40 and Aβ1-42 levels in hippocampus were detected by enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay, γ-secretase was detected by dual luciferase assaying, the levels of APH-1a, hypoxia-inducible factor 1α (HIF-1α), cAMP response element-binding protein (CREB) and PEN-2 and their mRNA expression was measured by Western blot and real-time polymerase chain reaction. Results: HYF can ameliorate learning and memory deficits in APP/PS1 transgenic mice by decreasing the escape latency, improving the number of platform crossing and swimming speed (P<0.01, P<0.05). HYF can decrease the levels of APP, Aβ1-40, Aβ1-42 and the activity of γ-secretase in hippocampus of Alzheimer's disease model mice. HYF can down-regulate the levels of CREB and PEN-2 and the expression of their mRNA. Conclusion: HYF can improve the learning and memory ability by inhibiting the activity of γ-secretase through the CREB/PEN-2 signaling pathway, and this may be one of the therapeutic mechanisms of HYF in Alzheimer's disease.

Purpose: To compare the effect of different methods of cleaning residual composite cement from the surface of lithium-disilicate glass-ceramic on its bond strength. Materials and methods: Blocks of lithium-silicate glass-ceramic (e.max CAD) were coated with composite cement. Blocks in a positive control (CO+) group received no cement; negative controls (CO-) received composite cement. After water storage (24 h), specimens were cleaned as follows (n = 20/group): BUR: grinding with a fine-grit diamond bur (20 s); ALUM: air abrasion with 50-µm alumina (10 s); GLASS: air abrasion with 50-µm glass beads (10 s); FURN: firing in ceramic furnace and cleaning with ethanol; SULF: immersion in sulfonic acid solution (1 h); HYFL: no additional treatment. All specimens were etched with hydrofluoric acid, aside from the CO- group, and treated with silane. A 1.5-mm diameter cement-filled tube was affixed to the specimens and light polymerized. Specimens were stored in 37°C water for 24 h (n = 10) or 90 days (n = 10). Shear bond strength was tested. Two-way ANOVA and post-hoc Tukey tests were performed. Specimens from each group were examined with SEM. Results: Bond strength significantly differed according to surface cleaning method (p < 0.01) and storage time (p < 0.01), but their interaction was not significant (p = 0.264). Longer storage time decreased the bond strength. BUR, ALUM, GLASS, and FURN did not differ statistically significantly from CO+, but were significantly greater than CO-. SULF and HYFL did not differ statistically significantly from CO- and were significantly lower than CO+. Conclusions: Cleaning composite cement with BUR, ALUM, GLASS, and FURN restored bond strengths to that of the positive control. However, only GLASS and FURN did not roughen the surface of the underlying lithium-silicate glass-ceramic.