COVID-19 has infected millions of people and upended the lives of most humans on the planet. Researchers from across the psychological sciences have sought to document and investigate the impact of COVID-19 in myriad ways, causing an explosion of research that is broad in scope, varied in methods, and challenging to consolidate. Because policy and practice aimed at helping people live healthier and happier lives requires insight from robust patterns of evidence, this paper provides a rapid and thorough summary of high-quality studies published in 2020 addressing two overarching questions. First, what are the mental health consequences of living through the COVID-19 pandemic? Second, what are the neurological sequelae of contracting COVID-19? Our review of the evidence indicates that some facets of mental health suffered greatly during the early months of the pandemic (e.g., anxiety and depression increased), while other facets (life satisfaction) and correlates (social connection, loneliness) notably displayed resilience. In addition, early neurological data indicate several consequences of contracting COVID-19, both during infection and after recovery. In response to these insights, we present seven recommendations (1 urgent, 2 short-term, 4 ongoing) to support mental health and well-being during the pandemic and beyond.
A study of 525 3-4-year-old children in nursery schools and day-care centres was carried out to assess occlusal relationships and the presence of spacing or crowding of teeth. No significant differences in occlusal relationships were found between boys and girls (P > 0.05). Bilateral straight terminal planes of molars and class 1 canine relationship were the most prevalent features (74.5% and 73.3% respectively). Most of the children had 'normal' vertical and transverse occlusal relationships. The most common sites of spacing were mesial to maxillary canines and distal to mandibular canines. 32% of the children were found to have generalized anterior segment spacing, 4% showed exclusively anthropoid spaces, and 18% had either contact between all the teeth or crowding in the anterior region.
In clinical use, the force retention of elastomeric chain was better than previously concluded. High initial forces resulted in high force decay. Nickel titanium coil springs and elastomeric chain closed spaces at a similar rate.
This ex-vivo study compared the static frictional resistance of three self-ligating brackets with a conventional steel-ligated Ultratrimm bracket. The effects of archwire size (0.020, 0.019 x 0.025 and 0.021 x 0.025-inch), bracket/archwire angulation (0, 5 and 10 degrees) and the presence of unstimulated human saliva were investigated. The study demonstrated that both increases in wire size and bracket/archwire angulation resulted in increased static frictional resistance for all bracket types tested, with the presence of saliva having an inconsistent effect. Mobil-Lock Variable-Slot had the least friction for all wires for 0 degree angulation. However, with the introduction of angulation, the values were comparable to those of the other brackets. Activa brackets had the second lowest frictional resistance, although high values were found with 0.019 x 0.025-inch wires. SPEED brackets demonstrated low forces with round wires, although with rectangular wires or in the presence of angulation, friction was greatly increased. Ultratrimm brackets produced large individual variation, confirming the difficulty in standardizing ligation force, although under certain conditions, significantly larger frictional forces were observed. In conclusion, self-ligating brackets showed reduced frictional resistance in comparison to steel ligated brackets only under certain conditions.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.