AIM: To assess the attitudes of healthcare workers within the UK towards identification marking of removable prostheses, and quantify the frequency with which this is currently undertaken. DESIGN: A postal questionnaire-based study. SETTING: The study was undertaken within the UK between 2002 and 2006 and surveyed prosthodontists working in a wide range of clinical settings. SUBJECTS AND METHODS: Questionnaires were sent to two sample groups: 1. Specialists in prosthodontics registered on the GDC specialist list; 2. Nursing staff in elderly care homes within the locality of Glasgow. RESULTS: Return rate of questionnaires from prosthodontic specialists was high, with 119 from 160 (74%) completed and returned. 54.9% of prosthodontic specialists carried out complete denture marking in their clinical practice and 40.9% undertook identification marking of partial removable prostheses. The vast majority (81.0%) of specialists indicated that denture identification marking was a worthwhile procedure. Furthermore, 68.9% thought the introduction of some form of guideline would be beneficial. Differences in the frequency of denture marking existed between varying clinical environments. Denture marking was not undertaken by healthcare workers within any of the surveyed care homes. CONCLUSION: The overwhelming opinion of prosthodontic specialists within the UK promotes the use of denture marking as a routine procedure.
AIM: To assess the attitudes of healthcare workers within the UK towards identification marking of removable prostheses, and quantify the frequency with which this is currently undertaken. DESIGN: A postal questionnaire-based study. SETTING: The study was undertaken within the UK between 2002 and 2006 and surveyed prosthodontists working in a wide range of clinical settings. SUBJECTS AND METHODS: Questionnaires were sent to two sample groups: 1. Specialists in prosthodontics registered on the GDC specialist list; 2. Nursing staff in elderly care homes within the locality of Glasgow. RESULTS: Return rate of questionnaires from prosthodontic specialists was high, with 119 from 160 (74%) completed and returned. 54.9% of prosthodontic specialists carried out complete denture marking in their clinical practice and 40.9% undertook identification marking of partial removable prostheses. The vast majority (81.0%) of specialists indicated that denture identification marking was a worthwhile procedure. Furthermore, 68.9% thought the introduction of some form of guideline would be beneficial. Differences in the frequency of denture marking existed between varying clinical environments. Denture marking was not undertaken by healthcare workers within any of the surveyed care homes. CONCLUSION: The overwhelming opinion of prosthodontic specialists within the UK promotes the use of denture marking as a routine procedure.
Authors: Atul Bhardwaj; M S Priya; S Karthiga Kannan; Smita Singh; Saquib B Ahmed Shaikh; Mousa Abu Fadaleh Journal: J Forensic Dent Sci Date: 2017 Jan-Apr