Effect of Aloe Vera in Oral Health-A Review

The best treatment option available for treating any generalised tooth structure loss is to undergo full mouth rehabilitation. Full mouth rehabilitation aims at restoration of form and function of masticatory apparatus to nearly as normal condition as possible. The aim of the study was to report on the gender distribution and most common cause for full mouth rehabilitation among patients with FMR in a private dental college over six months of period. A retrospective study was done using the case records of patients visiting University hospital from June 2019 - March 2020. Case sheets with information on full mouth rehabilitation were retrieved and analysed using SPSS 20.0 software. Descriptive statistics and chi-square tests were performed. The results reported that there were no particular differences in gender distribution. Both females and males had equal predilection(50 % - males, 50 % - Females).Majority of the males who are diagnosed with FMR were in the age group 59 to 68 years whereas females diagnosed with FMR were in the age group 49 to 58 years which was found to be statistically significant as determined by chi-square tests(p value< 0.05).The most common reason in males for full mouth rehabilitation was attrition whereas in females multiple missing teeth, however, there was no significant association between the genders and cause of full mouth rehabilitation as determined by Pearson's chi-square test (p value> 0.05). Within the limits of the study, it can be concluded that Full mouth rehabilitation was done in both genders equally and females underwent FMR at a much younger age than males.

Section: Figure 1: the Bar Graph Shows The Frequency Of Males And Femmentioning

confidence: 99%

An assessment of various factors in patients who underwent full mouth rehabilitation in a university hospital set up

Ilankizhai¹,

Duraisamy²,

M³

2020

“…(Ganapathy et al, 2017;Kannan and Venugopalan, 2018) (Duraisamy et al, 2019;Ganapathy et al, 2016) Previously our team had conducted numerous studies which include in vitro studies (Ajay et al, 2017), clinical trials (Ranganathan et al, 2017;Ashok et al, 2014;Venugopalan et al, 2014), a systematic review (Vijayalakshmi and Ganapathy, 2016) and epidemiological surveys (Ashok and Suvitha, 2016) and hence the aim of this study was to identify the preference of treatment choice from the implant and FPD (Basha et al, 2018) among patients in Saveetha Dental College and Hospitals. (Ariga et al, 2018;Selvan and Ganapathy, 2016;Subasree et al, 2016)…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Preference of patient opting for implant vs FPD

Dave¹,

Rakshagan²,

Ramakrishnan³

2020

Managing the demand, prevalence, and the design of partial tooth loss is imperative to recognize the prosthetic necessities of the patients. A factor that may affect prosthodontic work is the patients' awareness of the most advanced technologies in aesthetic dentistry. The choice of prosthetic replacement is largely defined by the patient's choice and budgetary status, accessible technology and expertise, as well as the number of missing teeth. The aim of this study was to identify the preference of treatment choice from implant and FPD for the patients treated at a private dental hospital. The sample size consisted of 1122 patients who had FPDs or implants. The case sheets of patients were obtained from the patient record system. The data of each patient was obtained and tabulated. In our study, 54.46 % of patients were male, 45.45 % of patients were female, and 0.09 % belonged to the transgender population. 3.21 % patients belong to the age group of less than 20 years, 54.06 % patients in the age group 21-40 years, 35.5 % patients in the age group 41-60 years and 7.2 % patients in the age group above 60 years. The overall FPD were 809 across all age groups with the maximum in the age group 21-40 years (40.59%). Overall implants were 312 across all age groups with the maximum at 21-40 years (13.47%). It was concluded that there is a significant difference in the preference of patients opting for implant vs FPD, in which FPD was highly opted by the patients. Although removable partial dentures extended to play a significant role in prosthetic teeth replacement, the use of FPDs and dental implants showed an increase in number.

“…There may be reduced oral hygiene in patients requiring full mouth rehabilitation and so in preparing teeth for ixed partial dentures or for crowns, the incisal and cervical marginal discrepancies to be checked also care must be taken not to damage any tissues leading to infections like cellulitis etc. which may require additional antibiotic coverage (Subasree et al, 2016;Vijayalakshmi and Ganapathy, 2016). Most common prosthetic replacements were ixed partial dentures or crowns in case of full mouth rehabilitation followed by implants (Ganapathy et al, 2017;Jain et al, 2017).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Multidisciplinary Approach In Full Mouth Rehabilitation Treatments In University Based Setting- A Retrospective Study

Duraisamy

2020

Full mouth rehabilitation seeks to convert all unfavourable force to induce normal oral health. The restoration of normal shape, form, the function should always remain the prime goal in such an approach. The main aim of the study is to evaluate the role of multidisciplinary- approach in the treatment of full mouth rehabilitations. A retrospective data collection was done by analysing and reviewing the patient records from total 86000 case sheets from Saveetha dental college with the period between June 2019-march 2020. Inclusion criteria & exclusion criteria were available. Parameters were tabulated and analysed using SPSS software. There were totally 66 patients treated for full mouth rehabilitation in the study period. Among these, 22 were males and 44 were females .66% of both the population irrespective of age and gender had been treated with the involvement of 4 departments which includes periodontics, endodontics, oral surgery and prosthodontics. Chi-square t-test was performed, and the p-value was found to be 0.018 and the results show a significant relationship between age and the multidisciplinary treatment as p-value is <0.05. This study is in consensus with existing literature that full mouth rehabilitation treatment is to be done by a multidisciplinary approach rather than a single approach. Whether systemic health issues or socioeconomic reasons played a role in the acceptance of choice of treatment needs to be further evaluated with larger sample size and multicentre studies among our population.