Self‐reported assessment of intraoral prostheses among patients attending the prosthodontic department in a dental institute in India
Identifieur interne : 005675 ( Istex/Corpus ); précédent : 005674; suivant : 005676Self‐reported assessment of intraoral prostheses among patients attending the prosthodontic department in a dental institute in India
Auteurs : Kamal Shigli ; Mamata Hebbal ; Gangadhar Shivappa AngadiSource :
- Geriatrics & Gerontology International [ 1444-1586 ] ; 2008-06.
English descriptors
- KwdEn :
- Chief complaints, Clinical examination, Common complaint, Complete denture wearers, Complete dentures, Dent, Dental institute, Dental prostheses, Dental prosthesis, Dental sciences, Dental treatment, Denture, Denture satisfaction, Denture wearers, Elderly population, Esthetic value, Function others, Geriatric patients, Geriatrics, Intraoral, Intraoral prostheses, Japan geriatrics society, Japan geriatrics society assessment, Loose prostheses, Lower middle, Madhya pradesh, Natural teeth, Partial denture, Partial denture implant denture combination, Partial dentures, Patient satisfaction, Present study, Prostheses duration, Prostheses table, Prosthesis, Prosthet dent, Removable, Research center, Rural areas, Social status, Socioeconomic, Socioeconomic status, Tooth loss, Upper middle, Urban areas, Wearer, Wide variation.
- Teeft :
- Chief complaints, Clinical examination, Common complaint, Complete denture wearers, Complete dentures, Dent, Dental institute, Dental prostheses, Dental prosthesis, Dental sciences, Dental treatment, Denture, Denture satisfaction, Denture wearers, Elderly population, Esthetic value, Function others, Geriatric patients, Geriatrics, Intraoral, Intraoral prostheses, Japan geriatrics society, Japan geriatrics society assessment, Loose prostheses, Lower middle, Madhya pradesh, Natural teeth, Partial denture, Partial denture implant denture combination, Partial dentures, Patient satisfaction, Present study, Prostheses duration, Prostheses table, Prosthesis, Prosthet dent, Removable, Research center, Rural areas, Social status, Socioeconomic, Socioeconomic status, Tooth loss, Upper middle, Urban areas, Wearer, Wide variation.
Abstract
Aim: This study was conducted to provide a patient assessment of intraoral prostheses among subjects who reported to the Department of Prosthodontics, Institute of Dental Sciences, Belgaum.
Url:
DOI: 10.1111/j.1447-0594.2008.00455.x
Links to Exploration step
ISTEX:ADE5A64BD60D6E45D08208DA56530037B6BCB2ECLe document en format XML
<record><TEI wicri:istexFullTextTei="biblStruct"><teiHeader><fileDesc><titleStmt><title xml:lang="en">Self‐reported assessment of intraoral prostheses among patients attending the prosthodontic department in a dental institute in India</title><author><name sortKey="Shigli, Kamal" sort="Shigli, Kamal" uniqKey="Shigli K" first="Kamal" last="Shigli">Kamal Shigli</name><affiliation><mods:affiliation>Departments of Prosthodontics and</mods:affiliation></affiliation><affiliation><mods:affiliation>E-mail: kamalshigli@yahoo.co.in</mods:affiliation></affiliation></author><author><name sortKey="Hebbal, Mamata" sort="Hebbal, Mamata" uniqKey="Hebbal M" first="Mamata" last="Hebbal">Mamata Hebbal</name><affiliation><mods:affiliation>Preventive and Community Dentistry, Karnataka Lingayat Education Society's Institute of Dental Sciences, Belgaum, Karnataka, India</mods:affiliation></affiliation></author><author><name sortKey="Angadi, Gangadhar Shivappa" sort="Angadi, Gangadhar Shivappa" uniqKey="Angadi G" first="Gangadhar Shivappa" last="Angadi">Gangadhar Shivappa Angadi</name><affiliation><mods:affiliation>Departments of Prosthodontics and</mods:affiliation></affiliation></author></titleStmt><publicationStmt><idno type="wicri:source">ISTEX</idno><idno type="RBID">ISTEX:ADE5A64BD60D6E45D08208DA56530037B6BCB2EC</idno><date when="2008" year="2008">2008</date><idno type="doi">10.1111/j.1447-0594.2008.00455.x</idno><idno type="url">https://api.istex.fr/document/ADE5A64BD60D6E45D08208DA56530037B6BCB2EC/fulltext/pdf</idno><idno type="wicri:Area/Istex/Corpus">005675</idno><idno type="wicri:explorRef" wicri:stream="Istex" wicri:step="Corpus" wicri:corpus="ISTEX">005675</idno></publicationStmt><sourceDesc><biblStruct><analytic><title level="a" type="main">Self‐reported assessment of intraoral prostheses among patients attending the prosthodontic department in a dental institute in India</title><author><name sortKey="Shigli, Kamal" sort="Shigli, Kamal" uniqKey="Shigli K" first="Kamal" last="Shigli">Kamal Shigli</name><affiliation><mods:affiliation>Departments of Prosthodontics and</mods:affiliation></affiliation><affiliation><mods:affiliation>E-mail: kamalshigli@yahoo.co.in</mods:affiliation></affiliation></author><author><name sortKey="Hebbal, Mamata" sort="Hebbal, Mamata" uniqKey="Hebbal M" first="Mamata" last="Hebbal">Mamata Hebbal</name><affiliation><mods:affiliation>Preventive and Community Dentistry, Karnataka Lingayat Education Society's Institute of Dental Sciences, Belgaum, Karnataka, India</mods:affiliation></affiliation></author><author><name sortKey="Angadi, Gangadhar Shivappa" sort="Angadi, Gangadhar Shivappa" uniqKey="Angadi G" first="Gangadhar Shivappa" last="Angadi">Gangadhar Shivappa Angadi</name><affiliation><mods:affiliation>Departments of Prosthodontics and</mods:affiliation></affiliation></author></analytic><monogr></monogr><series><title level="j" type="main">Geriatrics & Gerontology International</title><title level="j" type="alt">GERIATRICS GERONTOLOGY INTERNATIONAL</title><idno type="ISSN">1444-1586</idno><idno type="eISSN">1447-0594</idno><imprint><biblScope unit="vol">8</biblScope><biblScope unit="issue">2</biblScope><biblScope unit="page" from="101">101</biblScope><biblScope unit="page" to="108">108</biblScope><biblScope unit="page-count">8</biblScope><publisher>Blackwell Publishing Asia</publisher><pubPlace>Melbourne, Australia</pubPlace><date type="published" when="2008-06">2008-06</date></imprint><idno type="ISSN">1444-1586</idno></series></biblStruct></sourceDesc><seriesStmt><idno type="ISSN">1444-1586</idno></seriesStmt></fileDesc><profileDesc><textClass><keywords scheme="KwdEn" xml:lang="en"><term>Chief complaints</term><term>Clinical examination</term><term>Common complaint</term><term>Complete denture wearers</term><term>Complete dentures</term><term>Dent</term><term>Dental institute</term><term>Dental prostheses</term><term>Dental prosthesis</term><term>Dental sciences</term><term>Dental treatment</term><term>Denture</term><term>Denture satisfaction</term><term>Denture wearers</term><term>Elderly population</term><term>Esthetic value</term><term>Function others</term><term>Geriatric patients</term><term>Geriatrics</term><term>Intraoral</term><term>Intraoral prostheses</term><term>Japan geriatrics society</term><term>Japan geriatrics society assessment</term><term>Loose prostheses</term><term>Lower middle</term><term>Madhya pradesh</term><term>Natural teeth</term><term>Partial denture</term><term>Partial denture implant denture combination</term><term>Partial dentures</term><term>Patient satisfaction</term><term>Present study</term><term>Prostheses duration</term><term>Prostheses table</term><term>Prosthesis</term><term>Prosthet dent</term><term>Removable</term><term>Research center</term><term>Rural areas</term><term>Social status</term><term>Socioeconomic</term><term>Socioeconomic status</term><term>Tooth loss</term><term>Upper middle</term><term>Urban areas</term><term>Wearer</term><term>Wide variation</term></keywords><keywords scheme="Teeft" xml:lang="en"><term>Chief complaints</term><term>Clinical examination</term><term>Common complaint</term><term>Complete denture wearers</term><term>Complete dentures</term><term>Dent</term><term>Dental institute</term><term>Dental prostheses</term><term>Dental prosthesis</term><term>Dental sciences</term><term>Dental treatment</term><term>Denture</term><term>Denture satisfaction</term><term>Denture wearers</term><term>Elderly population</term><term>Esthetic value</term><term>Function others</term><term>Geriatric patients</term><term>Geriatrics</term><term>Intraoral</term><term>Intraoral prostheses</term><term>Japan geriatrics society</term><term>Japan geriatrics society assessment</term><term>Loose prostheses</term><term>Lower middle</term><term>Madhya pradesh</term><term>Natural teeth</term><term>Partial denture</term><term>Partial denture implant denture combination</term><term>Partial dentures</term><term>Patient satisfaction</term><term>Present study</term><term>Prostheses duration</term><term>Prostheses table</term><term>Prosthesis</term><term>Prosthet dent</term><term>Removable</term><term>Research center</term><term>Rural areas</term><term>Social status</term><term>Socioeconomic</term><term>Socioeconomic status</term><term>Tooth loss</term><term>Upper middle</term><term>Urban areas</term><term>Wearer</term><term>Wide variation</term></keywords></textClass></profileDesc></teiHeader><front><div type="abstract">Aim: This study was conducted to provide a patient assessment of intraoral prostheses among subjects who reported to the Department of Prosthodontics, Institute of Dental Sciences, Belgaum.</div></front></TEI><istex><corpusName>wiley</corpusName><keywords><teeft><json:string>prosthesis</json:string><json:string>denture</json:string><json:string>socioeconomic status</json:string><json:string>geriatrics</json:string><json:string>complete dentures</json:string><json:string>intraoral prostheses</json:string><json:string>wearer</json:string><json:string>intraoral</json:string><json:string>prosthet dent</json:string><json:string>present study</json:string><json:string>dental sciences</json:string><json:string>clinical examination</json:string><json:string>japan geriatrics society</json:string><json:string>patient satisfaction</json:string><json:string>removable</json:string><json:string>natural teeth</json:string><json:string>common complaint</json:string><json:string>japan geriatrics society assessment</json:string><json:string>dental treatment</json:string><json:string>tooth loss</json:string><json:string>dental institute</json:string><json:string>socioeconomic</json:string><json:string>dent</json:string><json:string>madhya pradesh</json:string><json:string>loose prostheses</json:string><json:string>upper middle</json:string><json:string>lower middle</json:string><json:string>dental prostheses</json:string><json:string>denture satisfaction</json:string><json:string>prostheses table</json:string><json:string>research center</json:string><json:string>function others</json:string><json:string>dental prosthesis</json:string><json:string>wide variation</json:string><json:string>partial dentures</json:string><json:string>rural areas</json:string><json:string>urban areas</json:string><json:string>partial denture</json:string><json:string>partial denture implant denture combination</json:string><json:string>elderly population</json:string><json:string>social status</json:string><json:string>geriatric patients</json:string><json:string>denture wearers</json:string><json:string>complete denture wearers</json:string><json:string>esthetic value</json:string><json:string>chief complaints</json:string><json:string>prostheses duration</json:string></teeft></keywords><author><json:item><name>Kamal Shigli</name><affiliations><json:string>Departments of Prosthodontics and</json:string><json:string>E-mail: kamalshigli@yahoo.co.in</json:string></affiliations></json:item><json:item><name>Mamata Hebbal</name><affiliations><json:string>Preventive and Community Dentistry, Karnataka Lingayat Education Society's Institute of Dental Sciences, Belgaum, Karnataka, India</json:string></affiliations></json:item><json:item><name>Gangadhar Shivappa Angadi</name><affiliations><json:string>Departments of Prosthodontics and</json:string></affiliations></json:item></author><subject><json:item><lang><json:string>eng</json:string></lang><value>complaint</value></json:item><json:item><lang><json:string>eng</json:string></lang><value>intraoral prostheses</value></json:item><json:item><lang><json:string>eng</json:string></lang><value>patient self‐assessment</value></json:item></subject><articleId><json:string>GGI455</json:string></articleId><arkIstex>ark:/67375/WNG-FRVM6L1Q-G</arkIstex><language><json:string>eng</json:string></language><originalGenre><json:string>article</json:string></originalGenre><abstract>Aim: This study was conducted to provide a patient assessment of intraoral prostheses among subjects who reported to the Department of Prosthodontics, Institute of Dental Sciences, Belgaum.</abstract><qualityIndicators><score>5.891</score><pdfWordCount>3567</pdfWordCount><pdfCharCount>23840</pdfCharCount><pdfVersion>1.2</pdfVersion><pdfPageCount>8</pdfPageCount><pdfPageSize>595.276 x 779.528 pts</pdfPageSize><refBibsNative>true</refBibsNative><abstractWordCount>27</abstractWordCount><abstractCharCount>190</abstractCharCount><keywordCount>3</keywordCount></qualityIndicators><title>Self‐reported assessment of intraoral prostheses among patients attending the prosthodontic department in a dental institute in India</title><pmid><json:string>18713162</json:string></pmid><genre><json:string>article</json:string></genre><host><title>Geriatrics & Gerontology International</title><language><json:string>unknown</json:string></language><doi><json:string>10.1111/(ISSN)1447-0594</json:string></doi><issn><json:string>1444-1586</json:string></issn><eissn><json:string>1447-0594</json:string></eissn><publisherId><json:string>GGI</json:string></publisherId><volume>8</volume><issue>2</issue><pages><first>101</first><last>108</last><total>8</total></pages><genre><json:string>journal</json:string></genre></host><namedEntities><unitex><date><json:string>2008</json:string></date><geogName></geogName><orgName><json:string>Karnataka Lingayat Education Society’s Institute of Dental Sciences, Belgaum, Karnataka, India Aim</json:string><json:string>WHO</json:string><json:string>Institute of Dental Sciences, Belgaum</json:string><json:string>Modern Dental College and Research Center, Opposite Gandhi Nagar, Nainod Gram, Airport Road, Indore</json:string><json:string>Japan Geriatrics Society Self</json:string><json:string>Modern Dental College and Research Center, Indore, Madhya Pradesh</json:string><json:string>Department of Prosthodontics, Institute of Dental Sciences, Belgaum</json:string><json:string>Japan Geriatrics Society IRN</json:string><json:string>Japan Geriatrics Society</json:string><json:string>World Health Organization</json:string></orgName><orgName_funder></orgName_funder><orgName_provider></orgName_provider><persName><json:string>Van Waas</json:string></persName><placeName><json:string>IL</json:string><json:string>Canada</json:string><json:string>India</json:string><json:string>USA</json:string><json:string>Chicago</json:string><json:string>Delhi</json:string><json:string>MacKay</json:string></placeName><ref_url></ref_url><ref_bibl><json:string>Weinstein et al.</json:string><json:string>Gordon et al.</json:string><json:string>Baer et al.</json:string><json:string>Conny et al.</json:string><json:string>Shigli et al.</json:string></ref_bibl><bibl></bibl></unitex></namedEntities><ark><json:string>ark:/67375/WNG-FRVM6L1Q-G</json:string></ark><categories><wos><json:string>1 - social science</json:string><json:string>2 - gerontology</json:string><json:string>1 - science</json:string><json:string>2 - geriatrics & gerontology</json:string></wos><scienceMetrix><json:string>1 - health sciences</json:string><json:string>2 - public health & health services</json:string><json:string>3 - gerontology</json:string></scienceMetrix><scopus></scopus></categories><publicationDate>2008</publicationDate><copyrightDate>2008</copyrightDate><doi><json:string>10.1111/j.1447-0594.2008.00455.x</json:string></doi><id>ADE5A64BD60D6E45D08208DA56530037B6BCB2EC</id><score>1</score><fulltext><json:item><extension>pdf</extension><original>true</original><mimetype>application/pdf</mimetype><uri>https://api.istex.fr/document/ADE5A64BD60D6E45D08208DA56530037B6BCB2EC/fulltext/pdf</uri></json:item><json:item><extension>zip</extension><original>false</original><mimetype>application/zip</mimetype><uri>https://api.istex.fr/document/ADE5A64BD60D6E45D08208DA56530037B6BCB2EC/fulltext/zip</uri></json:item><istex:fulltextTEI uri="https://api.istex.fr/document/ADE5A64BD60D6E45D08208DA56530037B6BCB2EC/fulltext/tei"><teiHeader><fileDesc><titleStmt><title level="a" type="main">Self‐reported assessment of intraoral prostheses among patients attending the prosthodontic department in a dental institute in India</title></titleStmt><publicationStmt><authority>ISTEX</authority><publisher>Blackwell Publishing Asia</publisher><pubPlace>Melbourne, Australia</pubPlace><availability><licence>© 2008 Japan Geriatrics Society</licence></availability><date type="published" when="2008-06"></date></publicationStmt><notesStmt><note type="content-type" subtype="article" source="article" scheme="https://content-type.data.istex.fr/ark:/67375/XTP-6N5SZHKN-D">article</note><note type="publication-type" subtype="journal" scheme="https://publication-type.data.istex.fr/ark:/67375/JMC-0GLKJH51-B">journal</note></notesStmt><sourceDesc><biblStruct type="article"><analytic><title level="a" type="main">Self‐reported assessment of intraoral prostheses among patients attending the prosthodontic department in a dental institute in India</title><title level="a" type="short">Self‐reported assessment of prostheses</title><author xml:id="author-0000" role="corresp"><persName><forename type="first">Kamal</forename><surname>Shigli</surname></persName><affiliation>Departments of Prosthodontics and</affiliation><note type="foot">
Present addresses:
Modern Dental College and Research Center, Indore, Madhya Pradesh. </note><affiliation>Dr Kamal Shigli BDS MDS, B‐205, Staff Quarters, Modern Dental College and Research Center, Opposite Gandhi Nagar, Nainod Gram, Airport Road, Indore 453112, Madhya Pradesh, India. Email: kamalshigli@yahoo.co.in</affiliation></author><author xml:id="author-0001"><persName><forename type="first">Mamata</forename><surname>Hebbal</surname></persName><affiliation>Preventive and Community Dentistry, Karnataka Lingayat Education Society's Institute of Dental Sciences, Belgaum, Karnataka, India<address><country key="IN"></country></address></affiliation></author><author xml:id="author-0002"><persName><forename type="first">Gangadhar Shivappa</forename><surname>Angadi</surname></persName><affiliation>Departments of Prosthodontics and</affiliation><note type="foot">
Rural Dental College, Loni, Maharastra.</note></author><idno type="istex">ADE5A64BD60D6E45D08208DA56530037B6BCB2EC</idno><idno type="ark">ark:/67375/WNG-FRVM6L1Q-G</idno><idno type="DOI">10.1111/j.1447-0594.2008.00455.x</idno><idno type="unit">GGI455</idno><idno type="toTypesetVersion">file:GGI.GGI455.pdf</idno></analytic><monogr><title level="j" type="main">Geriatrics & Gerontology International</title><title level="j" type="alt">GERIATRICS GERONTOLOGY INTERNATIONAL</title><idno type="pISSN">1444-1586</idno><idno type="eISSN">1447-0594</idno><idno type="book-DOI">10.1111/(ISSN)1447-0594</idno><idno type="book-part-DOI">10.1111/ggi.2008.8.issue-2</idno><idno type="product">GGI</idno><idno type="publisherDivision">ST</idno><imprint><biblScope unit="vol">8</biblScope><biblScope unit="issue">2</biblScope><biblScope unit="page" from="101">101</biblScope><biblScope unit="page" to="108">108</biblScope><biblScope unit="page-count">8</biblScope><publisher>Blackwell Publishing Asia</publisher><pubPlace>Melbourne, Australia</pubPlace><date type="published" when="2008-06"></date></imprint></monogr></biblStruct></sourceDesc></fileDesc><profileDesc><abstract xml:lang="en" style="main"><p><hi rend="bold">Aim: </hi> This study was conducted to provide a patient assessment of intraoral prostheses among subjects who reported to the Department of Prosthodontics, Institute of Dental Sciences, Belgaum.</p><p><hi rend="bold">Methods: </hi> A nine‐item self‐designed closed‐ended questionnaire was recorded followed by a clinical examination. Patients who reported in a period of 2 months and had at least one prosthesis with a duration of usage of at least 1 month were included for the study. Collected data was statistically analyzed using the χ<hi rend="superscript">2</hi>‐test at a significance level of <hi rend="italic">P</hi> < 0.05.</p><p><hi rend="bold">Results: </hi> The questionnaire was answered by 125 patients, 72 completely edentulous and 53 partially edentulous, with age ranging 16–84 years (mean age, 54.13 ± 17 years). There was a wide variation in the duration of usage of prostheses, ranging 3 months to 27 years. Statistically, a highly significant difference was found between age and duration of prostheses (χ<hi rend="superscript">2</hi> = 77.29, <hi rend="italic">P</hi> < 0.001), between the type of prostheses being used with age and opinion with existing prostheses. When opinion regarding existing prostheses was compared with sex, age and duration of prostheses being used, a statistically significant difference was found between opinion with existing prostheses and age, sex and duration of prostheses. Of the patients, 49.6% complained of loss of function, 14.4% of loose prostheses and 7.2% reported pain with the existing prostheses.</p><p><hi rend="bold">Conclusion: </hi> Loss of function was the most common complaint with the existing prostheses among complete denture wearers. As the majority of the patients using fixed prostheses had no complaint with the prostheses, attention should be paid to preservation of natural teeth.</p></abstract><textClass><keywords xml:lang="en"><term xml:id="k1">complaint</term><term xml:id="k2">intraoral prostheses</term><term xml:id="k3">patient self‐assessment</term></keywords><keywords rend="tocHeading1"><term>ORIGINAL ARTICLES: EPIDEMIOLOGY, CLINICAL PRACTICE AND HEALTH</term></keywords></textClass><langUsage><language ident="en"></language></langUsage></profileDesc></teiHeader></istex:fulltextTEI><json:item><extension>txt</extension><original>false</original><mimetype>text/plain</mimetype><uri>https://api.istex.fr/document/ADE5A64BD60D6E45D08208DA56530037B6BCB2EC/fulltext/txt</uri></json:item></fulltext><metadata><istex:metadataXml wicri:clean="Wiley, elements deleted: body"><istex:xmlDeclaration>version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8" standalone="yes"</istex:xmlDeclaration><istex:document><component version="2.0" type="serialArticle" xml:lang="en"><header><publicationMeta level="product"><publisherInfo><publisherName>Blackwell Publishing Asia</publisherName><publisherLoc>Melbourne, Australia</publisherLoc></publisherInfo><doi origin="wiley" registered="yes">10.1111/(ISSN)1447-0594</doi><issn type="print">1444-1586</issn><issn type="electronic">1447-0594</issn><idGroup><id type="product" value="GGI"></id><id type="publisherDivision" value="ST"></id></idGroup><titleGroup><title type="main" sort="GERIATRICS GERONTOLOGY INTERNATIONAL">Geriatrics & Gerontology International</title></titleGroup></publicationMeta><publicationMeta level="part" position="06002"><doi origin="wiley">10.1111/ggi.2008.8.issue-2</doi><numberingGroup><numbering type="journalVolume" number="8">8</numbering><numbering type="journalIssue" number="2">2</numbering></numberingGroup><coverDate startDate="2008-06">June 2008</coverDate></publicationMeta><publicationMeta level="unit" type="article" position="6" status="forIssue"><doi origin="wiley">10.1111/j.1447-0594.2008.00455.x</doi><idGroup><id type="unit" value="GGI455"></id></idGroup><countGroup><count type="pageTotal" number="8"></count></countGroup><titleGroup><title type="tocHeading1">ORIGINAL ARTICLES: EPIDEMIOLOGY, CLINICAL PRACTICE AND HEALTH</title></titleGroup><copyright>© 2008 Japan Geriatrics Society</copyright><eventGroup><event type="firstOnline" date="2008-04-23"></event><event type="publishedOnlineFinalForm" date="2008-04-23"></event><event type="xmlConverted" agent="Converter:BPG_TO_WML3G version:2.3.2 mode:FullText source:FullText result:FullText" date="2010-03-06"></event><event type="xmlConverted" agent="Converter:WILEY_ML3G_TO_WILEY_ML3GV2 version:3.8.8" date="2014-01-26"></event><event type="xmlConverted" agent="Converter:WML3G_To_WML3G version:4.1.7 mode:FullText,remove_FC" date="2014-10-24"></event></eventGroup><numberingGroup><numbering type="pageFirst" number="101">101</numbering><numbering type="pageLast" number="108">108</numbering></numberingGroup><correspondenceTo>Dr Kamal Shigli BDS MDS, B‐205, Staff Quarters, Modern Dental College and Research Center, Opposite Gandhi Nagar, Nainod Gram, Airport Road, Indore 453112, Madhya Pradesh, India. Email: <email>kamalshigli@yahoo.co.in</email></correspondenceTo><objectNameGroup><objectName elementName="appendix">Appendix</objectName></objectNameGroup><linkGroup><link type="toTypesetVersion" href="file:GGI.GGI455.pdf"></link></linkGroup></publicationMeta><contentMeta><unparsedEditorialHistory>Accepted for publication 19 December 2007.</unparsedEditorialHistory><countGroup><count type="figureTotal" number="0"></count><count type="tableTotal" number="6"></count><count type="formulaTotal" number="0"></count><count type="referenceTotal" number="24"></count><count type="wordTotal" number="4542"></count><count type="linksPubMed" number="0"></count><count type="linksCrossRef" number="0"></count></countGroup><titleGroup><title type="main">Self‐reported assessment of intraoral prostheses among patients attending the prosthodontic department in a dental institute in India</title><title type="shortAuthors">K Shigli <i>et al.</i></title><title type="short">Self‐reported assessment of prostheses</title></titleGroup><creators><creator creatorRole="author" xml:id="cr1" affiliationRef="#a1" noteRef="#fn1" corresponding="yes"><personName><givenNames>Kamal</givenNames><familyName>Shigli</familyName></personName></creator><creator creatorRole="author" xml:id="cr2" affiliationRef="#a2"><personName><givenNames>Mamata</givenNames><familyName>Hebbal</familyName></personName></creator><creator creatorRole="author" xml:id="cr3" affiliationRef="#a1" noteRef="#fn2"><personName><givenNames>Gangadhar Shivappa</givenNames><familyName>Angadi</familyName></personName></creator></creators><affiliationGroup><affiliation xml:id="a1"><unparsedAffiliation>Departments of Prosthodontics and</unparsedAffiliation></affiliation><affiliation xml:id="a2" countryCode="IN"><unparsedAffiliation>Preventive and Community Dentistry, Karnataka Lingayat Education Society's Institute of Dental Sciences, Belgaum, Karnataka, India</unparsedAffiliation></affiliation></affiliationGroup><keywordGroup xml:lang="en"><keyword xml:id="k1">complaint</keyword><keyword xml:id="k2">intraoral prostheses</keyword><keyword xml:id="k3">patient self‐assessment</keyword></keywordGroup><abstractGroup><abstract type="main" xml:lang="en"><p><b>Aim: </b> This study was conducted to provide a patient assessment of intraoral prostheses among subjects who reported to the Department of Prosthodontics, Institute of Dental Sciences, Belgaum.</p><p><b>Methods: </b> A nine‐item self‐designed closed‐ended questionnaire was recorded followed by a clinical examination. Patients who reported in a period of 2 months and had at least one prosthesis with a duration of usage of at least 1 month were included for the study. Collected data was statistically analyzed using the χ<sup>2</sup>‐test at a significance level of <i>P</i> < 0.05.</p><p><b>Results: </b> The questionnaire was answered by 125 patients, 72 completely edentulous and 53 partially edentulous, with age ranging 16–84 years (mean age, 54.13 ± 17 years). There was a wide variation in the duration of usage of prostheses, ranging 3 months to 27 years. Statistically, a highly significant difference was found between age and duration of prostheses (χ<sup>2</sup> = 77.29, <i>P</i> < 0.001), between the type of prostheses being used with age and opinion with existing prostheses. When opinion regarding existing prostheses was compared with sex, age and duration of prostheses being used, a statistically significant difference was found between opinion with existing prostheses and age, sex and duration of prostheses. Of the patients, 49.6% complained of loss of function, 14.4% of loose prostheses and 7.2% reported pain with the existing prostheses.</p><p><b>Conclusion: </b> Loss of function was the most common complaint with the existing prostheses among complete denture wearers. As the majority of the patients using fixed prostheses had no complaint with the prostheses, attention should be paid to preservation of natural teeth.</p></abstract></abstractGroup></contentMeta><noteGroup><note xml:id="fn1"><label>*</label><p><i>Present addresses:</i>
Modern Dental College and Research Center, Indore, Madhya Pradesh. </p></note><note xml:id="fn2"><label>†</label><p>
Rural Dental College, Loni, Maharastra.</p></note></noteGroup></header></component></istex:document></istex:metadataXml><mods version="3.6"><titleInfo lang="en"><title>Self‐reported assessment of intraoral prostheses among patients attending the prosthodontic department in a dental institute in India</title></titleInfo><titleInfo type="abbreviated" lang="en"><title>Self‐reported assessment of prostheses</title></titleInfo><titleInfo type="alternative" contentType="CDATA" lang="en"><title>Self‐reported assessment of intraoral prostheses among patients attending the prosthodontic department in a dental institute in India</title></titleInfo><name type="personal"><namePart type="given">Kamal</namePart><namePart type="family">Shigli</namePart><affiliation>Departments of Prosthodontics and</affiliation><description>Present addresses: Modern Dental College and Research Center, Indore, Madhya Pradesh.</description><affiliation>E-mail: kamalshigli@yahoo.co.in</affiliation><role><roleTerm type="text">author</roleTerm></role></name><name type="personal"><namePart type="given">Mamata</namePart><namePart type="family">Hebbal</namePart><affiliation>Preventive and Community Dentistry, Karnataka Lingayat Education Society's Institute of Dental Sciences, Belgaum, Karnataka, India</affiliation><role><roleTerm type="text">author</roleTerm></role></name><name type="personal"><namePart type="given">Gangadhar Shivappa</namePart><namePart type="family">Angadi</namePart><affiliation>Departments of Prosthodontics and</affiliation><description>Rural Dental College, Loni, Maharastra.</description><role><roleTerm type="text">author</roleTerm></role></name><typeOfResource>text</typeOfResource><genre type="article" displayLabel="article" authority="ISTEX" authorityURI="https://content-type.data.istex.fr" valueURI="https://content-type.data.istex.fr/ark:/67375/XTP-6N5SZHKN-D">article</genre><originInfo><publisher>Blackwell Publishing Asia</publisher><place><placeTerm type="text">Melbourne, Australia</placeTerm></place><dateIssued encoding="w3cdtf">2008-06</dateIssued><edition>Accepted for publication 19 December 2007.</edition><copyrightDate encoding="w3cdtf">2008</copyrightDate></originInfo><language><languageTerm type="code" authority="rfc3066">en</languageTerm><languageTerm type="code" authority="iso639-2b">eng</languageTerm></language><physicalDescription><extent unit="figures">0</extent><extent unit="tables">6</extent><extent unit="formulas">0</extent><extent unit="references">24</extent><extent unit="linksCrossRef">0</extent><extent unit="words">4542</extent></physicalDescription><abstract>Aim: This study was conducted to provide a patient assessment of intraoral prostheses among subjects who reported to the Department of Prosthodontics, Institute of Dental Sciences, Belgaum.</abstract><abstract>Methods: A nine‐item self‐designed closed‐ended questionnaire was recorded followed by a clinical examination. Patients who reported in a period of 2 months and had at least one prosthesis with a duration of usage of at least 1 month were included for the study. Collected data was statistically analyzed using the χ2‐test at a significance level of P < 0.05.</abstract><abstract>Results: The questionnaire was answered by 125 patients, 72 completely edentulous and 53 partially edentulous, with age ranging 16–84 years (mean age, 54.13 ± 17 years). There was a wide variation in the duration of usage of prostheses, ranging 3 months to 27 years. Statistically, a highly significant difference was found between age and duration of prostheses (χ2 = 77.29, P < 0.001), between the type of prostheses being used with age and opinion with existing prostheses. When opinion regarding existing prostheses was compared with sex, age and duration of prostheses being used, a statistically significant difference was found between opinion with existing prostheses and age, sex and duration of prostheses. Of the patients, 49.6% complained of loss of function, 14.4% of loose prostheses and 7.2% reported pain with the existing prostheses.</abstract><abstract>Conclusion: Loss of function was the most common complaint with the existing prostheses among complete denture wearers. As the majority of the patients using fixed prostheses had no complaint with the prostheses, attention should be paid to preservation of natural teeth.</abstract><subject lang="en"><genre>keywords</genre><topic>complaint</topic><topic>intraoral prostheses</topic><topic>patient self‐assessment</topic></subject><relatedItem type="host"><titleInfo><title>Geriatrics & Gerontology International</title></titleInfo><genre type="journal" authority="ISTEX" authorityURI="https://publication-type.data.istex.fr" valueURI="https://publication-type.data.istex.fr/ark:/67375/JMC-0GLKJH51-B">journal</genre><identifier type="ISSN">1444-1586</identifier><identifier type="eISSN">1447-0594</identifier><identifier type="DOI">10.1111/(ISSN)1447-0594</identifier><identifier type="PublisherID">GGI</identifier><part><date>2008</date><detail type="volume"><caption>vol.</caption><number>8</number></detail><detail type="issue"><caption>no.</caption><number>2</number></detail><extent unit="pages"><start>101</start><end>108</end><total>8</total></extent></part></relatedItem><identifier type="istex">ADE5A64BD60D6E45D08208DA56530037B6BCB2EC</identifier><identifier type="ark">ark:/67375/WNG-FRVM6L1Q-G</identifier><identifier type="DOI">10.1111/j.1447-0594.2008.00455.x</identifier><identifier type="ArticleID">GGI455</identifier><accessCondition type="use and reproduction" contentType="copyright">© 2008 Japan Geriatrics Society</accessCondition><recordInfo><recordContentSource authority="ISTEX" authorityURI="https://loaded-corpus.data.istex.fr" valueURI="https://loaded-corpus.data.istex.fr/ark:/67375/XBH-L0C46X92-X">wiley</recordContentSource><recordOrigin>Blackwell Publishing Asia</recordOrigin></recordInfo></mods><json:item><extension>json</extension><original>false</original><mimetype>application/json</mimetype><uri>https://api.istex.fr/document/ADE5A64BD60D6E45D08208DA56530037B6BCB2EC/metadata/json</uri></json:item></metadata><serie></serie></istex></record>Pour manipuler ce document sous Unix (Dilib)
EXPLOR_STEP=$WICRI_ROOT/Wicri/Santé/explor/EdenteV2/Data/Istex/Corpus
HfdSelect -h $EXPLOR_STEP/biblio.hfd -nk 005675 | SxmlIndent | more
Ou
HfdSelect -h $EXPLOR_AREA/Data/Istex/Corpus/biblio.hfd -nk 005675 | SxmlIndent | more
Pour mettre un lien sur cette page dans le réseau Wicri
{{Explor lien
|wiki= Wicri/Santé
|area= EdenteV2
|flux= Istex
|étape= Corpus
|type= RBID
|clé= ISTEX:ADE5A64BD60D6E45D08208DA56530037B6BCB2EC
|texte= Self‐reported assessment of intraoral prostheses among patients attending the prosthodontic department in a dental institute in India
}}
| This area was generated with Dilib version V0.6.32. |  |