ArticleBritish dental journal2016
Evaluating denture cleanliness of patients in a regional dental hospital.
Article in British dental journal, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Denture Plaque Biofilm Visual Assessment Methods: A Systematic Review.International dental journal · 2024Pooled it
- Denture cleanliness and hygiene: an overview.British dental journal · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Aims To evaluate the quality of clinical record keeping and determine quality of denture cleanliness; record baseline denture cleanliness for 60 patients; introduce denture hygiene instruction (DHI); and then re-assess the patients for improvement and enhanced record keeping.Methods Analysis of patients' denture hygiene instruction record keeping (n = 60) was undertaken retrospectively. The Denture Cleanliness Index (DCI) was utilised to assess denture cleanliness (best score 0, worst score 4). Baseline DCI scores were taken and individual DHI was delivered. After one month, patients were reviewed and scored, with record keeping quality analysed.Results At baseline, 11.7% (n = 7) of patients had DCI scores of ≤2, improving to 93.8% (n = 45) after one month, demonstrating short-term improvement in denture cleanliness. Only 63% (n = 38) of patients had evidence of a record of DHI within their notes at baseline, improving to 100% at recall.Conclusions New patient information leaflet and clinical guidelines on denture hygiene have been written and implemented. The results of this study suggest that this may be a relatively straightforward method to achieve a short-term improvement in denture cleanliness. The implementation of a DCI score is helpful in allowing patients to improve denture hygiene and its wider use is supported.
Indexed as
Identifiers
27514347What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.