飞行汽车齿轮传动系统动态可靠性分析

飞行汽车作为面向未来城市空中交通的新型交通工具，具有智能、高效和便捷的特点。齿轮传动作为飞行汽车动力传输的关键部件，其安全性与可靠性已成为制约飞行汽车发展的难题。但目前针对飞行汽车齿轮传动系统的可靠性分析方法缺失，现有齿轮传动设计方法未能考虑强度退化与失效相关性对系统可靠性的影响，存在潜在失效风险。因此，基于应力-强度干涉理论，建立了考虑强度退化与失效相关性的某飞行汽车齿轮传动系统动态可靠性分析模型；根据飞行任务剖面图建立载荷谱，并获得了齿轮接触与弯曲应力，通过Goodman准则将齿轮脉动循环应力历程等效为对称循环应力，以匹配基于S-N曲线的疲劳损伤计算；基于非线性疲劳累积损伤理论，建立了齿轮强度退化模型，并通过Copula函数描述了传动系统中的失效耦合相关性；结合应力-强度干涉理论，阐述了飞行汽车齿轮传动系统可靠性演化规律，为飞行汽车齿轮传动系统动态设计与可靠性优化奠定了基础

铸锭工艺对齿轮弯曲疲劳性能影响的试验研究

当前，表面硬化齿轮存在多种铸锭工艺状态，开展铸锭工艺对齿轮弯曲疲劳性能影响的研究，对齿轮抗疲劳精益设计和成本控制有十分重要的意义。对模铸锭、连铸坯和电渣锭18CrNiMo7-6渗碳齿轮开展了表面完整性表征测试，研究了不同铸锭状态齿轮的齿根残余应力、表面粗糙度和硬度差异；基于齿轮弯曲疲劳试验国家标准GB/T 14230—2021，设计了齿轮弯曲疲劳试验方案，对模铸锭、连铸坯和电渣锭18CrNiMo7-6齿轮开展了升降法齿轮弯曲疲劳试验，获取了不同可靠度下的弯曲疲劳极限，探究了铸锭工艺对齿轮弯曲疲劳极限的影响；对3种工艺状态齿轮开展了Locati快速测定法的齿轮弯曲疲劳极限测试，研究了两种试验方法的弯曲疲劳极限结果差异，为我国齿轮疲劳基础数据建设与抗疲劳主动设计提供参考

Teeth contacting habit as a contributing factor to chronic pain in patients with temporomandibular disorders

Many different factors are known to cause and perpetuate the symptoms of temporomandibular disorders (TMD). However, the roles of parafunctional factors have not been clearly elucidated. We found one of these habits in the clinical setting. This parafunctional habit involves daily light touching of the upper and lower teeth, when the mouth is closed. We named this habit Teeth Contacting Habit (TCH). [Objectives] To investigate the following hypotheses: 1) TCH is associated with perpetuation of chronic pain of TMD patients; 2) TCH is associated with other behavioral factors. [Methods] Two hundred and twenty-nine TMD outpatients with chronic pain were analyzed with multivariate logistic regression models. [Results] TCH was found in 52.4% of patients. Patients with TCH and pain lasting for more than four months were less likely to experience improvements in pain at the first visit (OR = 1.944, p = 0.043). Other factors associated with TCH were as follows: unilateral chewing (OR = 2.802) and involvement in a precision job (OR = 2.195). [Conclusion] TCH can prolong TMD pain and is associated with other behavioral factors

Aripiprazole versus other atypical antipsychotics for schizophrenia

BACKGROUND: In most western industrialised countries, second generation (atypical) antipsychotics are recommended as first line drug treatments for people with schizophrenia. In this review we specifically examine how the efficacy and tolerability of one such agent - aripiprazole - differs from that of other comparable second generation antipsychotics. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the effects of aripiprazole compared with other atypical antipsychotics for people with schizophrenia and schizophrenia-like psychoses. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Schizophrenia Group Trials Register (November 2011), inspected references of all identified studies for further trials, and contacted relevant pharmaceutical companies, drug approval agencies and authors of trials for additional information. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included all randomised clinical trials (RCTs) comparing aripiprazole (oral) with oral and parenteral forms of amisulpride, clozapine, olanzapine, quetiapine, risperidone, sertindole, ziprasidone or zotepine for people with schizophrenia or schizophrenia-like psychoses. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We extracted data independently. For dichotomous data we calculated risk ratios (RR) and their 95% confidence intervals (CI) on an intention-to-treat basis based on a random-effects model. Where possible, we calculated illustrative comparative risks for primary outcomes. For continuous data, we calculated mean differences (MD), again based on a random-effects model. We assessed risk of bias for each included study. MAIN RESULTS: We included 12 trials involving 6389 patients. Aripiprazole was compared to olanzapine, risperidone and ziprasidone. All trials were sponsored by an interested drug manufacturer. The overall number of participants leaving studies early was 30% to 40%, limiting validity (no differences between groups).When compared with olanzapine no differences were apparent for global state (no clinically important change: n = 703, 1 RCT, RR short-term 1.00 95% CI 0.81 to 1.22; n = 317, 1 RCT, RR medium-term 1.08 95% CI 0.95 to 1.22) but mental state tended to favour olanzapine (n = 1360, 3 RCTs, MD total Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale (PANSS) 4.68 95% CI 2.21 to 7.16). There was no significant difference in extrapyramidal symptoms (n = 529, 2 RCTs, RR 0.99 95% CI 0.62 to 1.59) but fewer in the aripiprazole group had increased cholesterol levels (n = 223, 1 RCT, RR 0.32 95% CI 0.19 to 0.54) or weight gain of 7% or more of total body weight (n = 1095, 3 RCTs, RR 0.39 95% CI 0.28 to 0.54).When compared with risperidone, aripiprazole showed no advantage in terms of global state (n = 384, 2 RCTs, RR no important improvement 1.14 95% CI 0.81 to 1.60) or mental state (n = 372, 2 RCTs, MD total PANSS 1.50 95% CI -2.96 to 5.96).One study compared aripiprazole with ziprasidone (n = 247) and both the groups reported similar change in the global state (n = 247, 1 RCT, MD average change in Clinical Global Impression-Severity (CGI-S) score -0.03 95% CI -0.28 to 0.22) and mental state (n = 247, 1 RCT, MD change PANSS -3.00 95% CI -7.29 to 1.29).When compared with any one of several new generation antipsychotic drugs the aripiprazole group showed improvement in global state in energy (n = 523, 1 RCT, RR 0.69 95% CI 0.56 to 0.84), mood (n = 523, 1 RCT, RR 0.77 95% CI 0.65 to 0.92), negative symptoms (n = 523, 1 RCT, RR 0.82 95% CI 0.68 to 0.99), somnolence (n = 523, 1 RCT, RR 0.80 95% CI 0.69 to 0.93) and weight gain (n = 523, 1 RCT, RR 0.84 95% CI 0.76 to 0.94). Significantly more people given aripiprazole reported symptoms of nausea (n = 2881, 3 RCTs, RR 3.13 95% CI 2.12 to 4.61) but weight gain (7% or more of total body weight) was less common in people allocated aripiprazole (n = 330, 1 RCT, RR 0.35 95% CI 0.19 to 0.64). Aripiprazole may have value in aggression but data are limited. This will be the focus of another review. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Information on all comparisons are of limited quality, are incomplete and problematic to apply clinically. Aripiprazole is an antipsychotic drug with a variant but not absent adverse effect profile. Long-term data are sparse and there is considerable scope for another update of this review as new data emerges from the many Chinese studies as well as from ongoing larger, independent pragmatic trials