Papillon-Lefevre Syndrome Prosthetic Rehabilitation Options; a Narrative Review

Author(s):  
Ahmad Othman ◽  
Abdulrahman Abualfaraj ◽  
Amirah Alrazehi ◽  
Safa Susi ◽  
Rawan Aljohani ◽  
...  
2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Chantel Ostler ◽  
Helen Scott ◽  
Imad Sedki ◽  
Sisary Kheng ◽  
Maggie Donovan-Hall ◽  
...  

Background: Outcome measurement is essential to understand the impact of clinical interventions and the performance of services. Despite national and professional encouragement outcome measurement has failed to become embedded in clinical practice and its value continues to be questioned. Objectives: To address the outcome measurement debate within lower limb prosthetic rehabilitation and provide a critical synthesis of the evidence surrounding the discussion applied within the clinical context of the UK National Health Service (NHS).Study Design: Narrative review Methods: The authors drew on over 20 years clinical experience in prosthetic rehabilitation to synthesise and critique the outcome literature across a breadth of healthcare services. A narrative review methodology was selected to give voice to the clinical narrative thread.Results: This review addresses why we should measure health outcomes, the health care delivery and organisational scenarios in which outcome measurement can be beneficial and explores where lessons can be learnt for prosthetic rehabilitation from approaches in different specialities. The current outcome measurement literature within prosthetic rehabilitation is critiqued and we discuss the issues facing this field in the future.Conclusions: The dilemma of successful outcome measurement in clinical practice is multifaceted. Understanding and embedding value at every step is key to success. Addressing the questions of `why’, `what’ and `how’ we measure outcome will move us closer to a national consensus. Routine outcome measurement implementation at the clinical level must ensure data collection is valuable to clinical practice, makes use of IT solutions and has all important organisational buy in.


2017 ◽  
Vol 23 ◽  
pp. 60
Author(s):  
Altamash Shaikh ◽  
Anuj Maheshwari ◽  
Banshi Saboo ◽  
Ashok Jhingan ◽  
Shriram Kulkarni ◽  
...  

Author(s):  
Marcela Moreira Salles ◽  
Viviane de Cássia Oliveira ◽  
Ana Paula Macedo ◽  
Claudia Helena Silva-Lovato ◽  
Helena de Freitas Oliveira Paranhos

Implant-supported prostheses hygiene and peri-implant tissues health are considered to be predictive factors for successful prosthetic rehabilitation. Therefore, the purpose of this study was to evaluate the effectiveness of brushing associated with oral irrigation measured as biofilm-removing capacity, maintenance of healthy oral tissues, and patient satisfaction. A randomized, crossover clinical trial was conducted with 38 patients who wore conventional maxillary complete dentures and mandibular overdentures retained by the O-ring system. The patients were instructed to use the following hygiene methods for 14 days: mechanical brushing [MB (brush and dentifrice - Control)]; and MB with oral irrigation [WP (Waterpik - Experimental)]. Biofilm-removing capacity and maintenance of healthy oral tissues were evaluated by the Modified Plaque Index (PI), Gingival Index (GI), Probing Depth (PD), and Bleeding on Probing Index (BP) recorded at baseline and after each method. In parallel, patients answered a specific questionnaire using a Visual Analogue Scale after each hygiene method. Data were analyzed by Friedman and Wilcoxon tests (α=0.05). The results showed significantly lower PI, GI, PD, and BP indices after application of the hygiene methods (P<0.001) than those observed at baseline. However, no significant difference was found between MB and WP. The satisfaction questionnaire responses to both methods showed high mean values for all questions, with no statistically significant difference found between the answers given after the use of MB and WP (P>0.05). The findings suggest that WP was effective in reducing PI, GI, PD, and BP indices and provided a high level of patient satisfaction.


Author(s):  
Aggeliki Bistaraki ◽  
Maria Zarokosta ◽  
Theodoros Mariolis Sapsakos ◽  
George Skarpas ◽  
Georgios Nousios ◽  
...  

Author(s):  
Vieri Grandi ◽  
Silvia Alberti Violetti ◽  
Roberta La Selva ◽  
Stefano Cicchelli ◽  
Chiara Delfino ◽  
...  

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document