Modeling the gluon propagator in Landau gauge: Lattice estimates of pole masses and dimension-two condensates

We present an analytic description of numerical results for the Landau-gauge SU(2) gluon propagator D(p(2)), obtained from lattice simulations (in the scaling region) for the largest lattice sizes to date, in d = 2, 3 and 4 space-time dimensions. Fits to the gluon data in 3d and in 4d show very good agreement with the tree-level prediction of the refined Gribov-Zwanziger (RGZ) framework, supporting a massive behavior for D(p(2)) in the infrared limit. In particular, we investigate the propagator's pole structure and provide estimates of the dynamical mass scales that can be associated with dimension-two condensates in the theory. In the 2d case, fitting the data requires a noninteger power of the momentum p in the numerator of the expression for D(p(2)). In this case, an infinite-volume-limit extrapolation gives D(0) = 0. Our analysis suggests that this result is related to a particular symmetry in the complex-pole structure of the propagator and not to purely imaginary poles, as would be expected in the original Gribov-Zwanziger scenario.

Influence of adenotonsillectomy on hard palate dimensions

Objective: To evaluate hard palate width and height in mouth-breathing children pre- and post-adenotonsillectomy. Methods: We evaluated 44 children in the 3-6 year age bracket, using dental study casts in order to determine palatal height, intercanine width, and intermolar width. The children were divided into two groups: nasal breathing (n = 15) and mouth breathing (n = 29). The children in the latter group underwent adenotonsillectomy. The study casts were obtained prior to adenotonsillectomy, designated time point 1(11), at 13 months after adenotonsillectomy (T2), and at 28 months after adenotonsillectomy (13). Similar periods of observation were obtained for nasal breathing children. Results: At T1, there was a significantly lower intercanine width in mouth breathing children; intermolar width and palate height were similar between groups. After surgery, there was a significant increase in all the analyzed parameters in both groups, probably due to facial growth. Instead, the increase in intercanine width was substantially more prominent in mouth breathing children than in nasal breathing children, and the former difference failed in significance after the procedure. Conclusions: There were no significant differences between the nasal-breathing and mouth-breathing children in terms of intermolar width and palatal height prior to or after tonsillectomy. Although intercanine width was initially narrower in the mouth-breathing children, it showed normalization after the surgical procedure. These results confirm that the restoration of nasal breathing is central to proper occlusal development. (C) 2012 Elsevier Ireland Ltd. All rights reserved.