Perceptions and preferences on denture marking in an Indian sample

Abstract

Perceptions and preferences on denture marking in an Indian sample Aim: Denture marking is useful in institutional settings and post-mortem identification. Numerous markers have been developed, and their advantages and limitations assessed previously; however, patient perception to denture marking is paramount. We evaluated this in an Indian sample and also gauged their preference for different markers. Materials and methods: One-hundred and one edentulous patients seeking prosthodontic treatment in our institution were shown four denture markers (stainless steel matrix band, paper strip with name inscribed on it, patient photograph and optically readable laminated bar code) and asked whether they wanted similar markers in their dentures; patients were also asked to rank the markers based on preference and indicate their satisfaction with it.Results: Approximately two-thirds of patients (65/101) were uninterested in getting their dentures marked; among the 36 who agreed, 10 preferred the stainless steel band followed by photographs (9), paper strip (6) and bar code (2); nine gave multiple responses and were excluded from analyses. Sixteen patients expressed dissatisfaction with the photographic marker and bar code, while this number reduced for the stainless steel band (13) and paper strip (10). Conclusions:The results are in contrast to European studies wherein the majority of patients agreed to denture marking, indicating patient background (e.g. education level) may affect perception to denture marking; amongst those who agreed to marking, most preferred, or were satisfied with, the stainless steel and paper strip markers over photographic marker and a complex method such as bar-coding, implying that simple methods harbouring basic patient information may suffice in the Indian context.

Attitudes, Perceptions, and Preferences of Individuals from Temuco (Chile) About Denture Marking

“…Although there are many different types of labelled dentures, the eight models used in this research were chosen not only to represent eight systems validated by the literature for this purpose, but also for the possibility of being reproduced for use as a physical demonstration in the patient's hand during the survey. We agree with Acharya et al (6) in that offering actual dentures to subjects is better than just giving them photographs, as this would give subjects a better idea of the different DM systems, enhancing their perceptions and preferences reliably and unequivocally. We believe that in this experiment, these real representations allowed patients to adequately infer the visual and sensory concepts necessary to establish among their preferences, for example, inclusion systems rather than surface marking methods due to possible "roughness" and discomfort in the wearing, or QR codes over the conventional barcodes as they were visually "smaller" as detected in the responses.…”

“…In particular, the ADA has made robust commitments in relation to this heavy metal poisoning (32). Returning to our research, it is notable that one of the subjects interviewed has knowledge of this eventual relationship; in fact, the apparent curiosity of the vast majority of individuals for this type of knowledge, the novel, and even the technological matters ("technology" was considered as a reason for the first preference) seems to coincide with what Richmond & Pretty reported in their respondents (14), but it certainly contrasts with the results of Acharya et al, (6) whose subjects seemed to prefer the more traditional methods over the novel. Likewise, our respondents were constantly concerned about the costs of implementing any of the methods shown, a concern that seemed not to be considered by previous studies.…”

“…The authors consider that this choice can be explained by the preference of having a marking system that readily reveals identity as depicted by a photograph. However, the same authors emphasize the “high levels of dissatisfaction” with this system, which according to them may reflect ambiguity in terms of preference for this system . In our sample, the preference for the embedded photograph system also presented ambiguity in aesthetics and in accuracy (both stated as reasons of first and last preference).…”

“…In India in 2012, Acharya et al surveyed 101 edentulous individuals about their perceptions and preferences in DM. In contrast to Richmond & Pretty, and beyond the preferences that they detected for some particular systems, the authors reported that 64.35% of their patients were not interested in marking their dentures (6). Our research seems to represent the only report to date made in a South American population, so basing our methodology conscientiously on previous reports was indispensable, and required not only a correct linguistic adaptation of the questionnaire, especially that of Acharya et al (6) but also to put the appropriate models of DM methods physical in the patient's hand so they were able to provide responses as accurate as possible.…”

“…While the subjects observed in detail and held the different models of labelled dentures in their hand, they were invited to respond to a questionnaire, which was previously designed on the basis of surveys proposed by Bengtsson et al , Richmond & Pretty , and Acharya et al , translated into Spanish by the authors to avoid transculturation, errors in the cross‐cultural adaptation, or even technical misinterpretations. The questionnaire had 13 specific questions to answer in a dichotomous, categorical, open or conditional manner in an effort to expose the current state of the respondents' rehabilitation and labelling of dentures, their knowledge as well as their perceptions, preferences and interests regarding this technique and of the eight models shown (Appendix).…”