Introduction: This study aims to evaluate surface wettability of additional silicone impression materials, which are immersed in different disinfecting agents with different time intervals. Methods: Ninety disk-shaped specimens to be eighteen specimens from each of five different impression materials (four vinyl polysiloxane and one vinyl polyether siloxane) were prepared. The specimens were divided into six groups according to the disinfecting agents (one of them containing ethanol and other one containing benzalkonium chloride) and periods. Then, the specimens were immersed in two disinfecting agents for 1 minute, 1 hour and 24 hours. Later, surface wettability was tested and recorded. Data were analyzed with analysis of variance (ANOVA). Results: There was no difference between impression materials and disinfectants in terms of the effect on the contact angle (p>0. 05), and there was a significant difference between disinfection times (p=0. 001). Conclusions: One-minute disinfection process increases wettability of specimens compared to long term disinfections.

In contrast to other ancillary suits (such as competing claims, compulsory presence of a third party, and intervention of a third party), there are no particular regulations in the Iranian Civil Procedural Law to define principles and rules govering “additional claim”. The word “additional” within the context of this term has two meanings. Its general meaning includes any change in the essential elements of the claim, the purpose of the claim, and the reason for the claim, which generally known as “changes in the claim”. In its specific meaning, it refers to a claim submitted under a new demand which is attached to the original claim due to its relation to the original claim. Accordingly, this paper analyses the concept, necessity, conditions and rules govering the additional claim in order to clarify the existing ambiguous points, differences and similarities with the changes in the claim.

Purpose: To evaluate electroretinogram (ERG) changes after silicone oil removal.Methods: Scotopic and photopic ERGs, and best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA) were checked before and shortly after silicone oil removal in eyes that had previously undergone vitrectomy and silicone oil injection for complex retinal detachment. Preand postoperative ERG a- and b-wave amplitudes were compared.Results: Twenty-eight eyes of 28 patients including 20 male and 8 female subjects with mean age of 39.3 ± 0.06 (range, 12 to 85) years were studied. Mean interval from primary vitreoretinal surgery to silicone oil removal was 21.04 ± 0.52 (range, 7 to 39) months. Mean duration from silicone oil removal to second ERG was 13.04 ± 1.75 (range, 10 to 16) days. Before silicone oil removal, mean a-wave amplitudes in maximal combined response, rod response and cone response ERGs were 27.4 ± 19.9, 7.2 ± 4.5 and 5.5 ± 3.4 mv, respectively. These values increased to 48.8 ± 31.9, 15.1 ± 14.4 and 17.4 ± 22.2 mv, respectively after silicone oil removal (P<0.001). Mean b-wave amplitudes in the same order, were 69.41 ± 51, 41.2 ± 30.4 and 25.1 ± 33.9 mv before silicone oil removal, increasing to 165.6 ± 102.5, 81.7 ± 53.7 and 44.7 ± 34.1 mv respectively, after silicone oil removal (P<0.001). Mean BCVA significantly improved from 1.10 ± 0.34 at baseline to 1.02 ± 0.33 logMAR after silicone oil removal (P<0.001).Conclusion: The amplitudes of ERG a- and b-waves under scotopic and photopic conditions increased significantly shortly after silicone oil removal. An increase in BCVA was also observed. These changes may be explained by the insulating effect of silicone oil on the retina.