Prosthetic treatment in the adult French population: Prevalence and relation with demographic,socioeconomic and medical characteristics

BackgroundThe aim of this study was to estimate the prevalence of dental prosthetic treatment and to investigate the demographic, social, economic and medical factors associated with the use of fixed and removable dentures in a representative sample of adults living in France.MethodsThe data were obtained from the 2002–2003 Decennial Health Survey, a cross-sectional study of a representative sample of the population living in France, which included 29,679 adults. Information was collected by interview. The variables collected were fixed denture, removable denture, age, gender, number of children, area of residence, nationality, educational attainment, family social status, employment status, annual household income per capita, supplementary insurance, chronic disease, eyesight problems/glasses, hearing problems/hearing aids. Multinomial logistic regression models were used to study the relationship between prosthetic treatment and demographic, socioeconomic and medical characteristics unadjusted, adjusted for age and adjusted for all the characteristics.ResultsThe prevalence of prosthetic treatment was 34.6% (95% confidence interval (CI): [34.1; 35.2]) for fixed prosthetic dentures and 13.8% (95% CI: [13.4; 14.2]) for removable prosthetic dentures. We showed a gradient between educational attainment and removable dentures; the odds ratio adjusted for all the variables (aOR) associated with no or primary education compared to post-secondary education was 2.56; 95% CI: [2.09; 3.13]. When annual household income per capita was low, subjects were less likely to report fixed dentures (aOR = 0.68; 95% CI: [0.62; 0.75]) than those with high annual household income per capita. Individuals without insurance less often reported fixed dentures than those with private insurance. Those reporting chronic disease were less likely to report fixed dentures (aOR = 0.87; 95% CI: [0.79; 0.95]) but more likely to report removable dentures (aOR = 1.29; 95% CI: [1.17; 1.43]) than those without chronic disease.ConclusionThis study reveals social, economic and medical inequalities in fixed and removable prosthetic treatment among adults in France.     

Correction to: Influence of oral anticoagulation on success rates and risk of bleeding events after iStent inject implantation combined with phacoemulsification

Graefe's Archive for Clinical and Experimental Ophthalmology - The published online version contains mistake as the author's first name and last name have been interchanged as "Hild...     

A comparison of the academic impact of plastic surgery units in the United Kingdom and Ireland using bibliometric analysis

Academic output is just one aspect of a successful career as a plastic surgeon. However, for those with a strong interest in academia, the academic output of a department will likely be a key factor when deciding how to rank jobs. The aim of this study was to quantify and rank the academic output of plastic surgery units across the UK and Ireland. The Institute for Scientific Information (ISI) Web of Science Bibliometric analysis tool was used to collate cumulative (1950–2016), 10 year (2006–2016) and 3 years (2013–2015) research output data for plastic surgery units in the UK and Ireland. Sixty-six plastic surgery units were identified. Departments were ranked for each time period according to the number of papers produced, number of citations (Nc) and h-index (a measure of the impact of scientific output). The top 3 departments for number of papers in the last 10 years were The Royal Free Hospital, London (226) Broomfield Hospital, Chelmsford (218), and Morriston Hospital and Swansea (188). The top 3 for h-number were The Royal Free Hospital (21) Wythenshawe Hospital, Manchester (18) and Morriston Hospital (17). Academic output varies across plastic surgery units in the UK and Ireland. A number of departments have consistently maintained high academic outputs across the years and will be of interest to surgeons hoping to pursue a career in academia.     

Noise characterization of “effective quiet” areas on a U.S. Navy aircraft carrier

The purpose of this investigation was to characterize noise levels in spaces designated as “effective quiet” areas on a U.S. Navy aircraft carrier. Noise dosimetry samples were collected in 15 designated spaces, representing 15 noise measurements, while at-sea during airwing carrier qualifications. Equivalent sound level (L_eq) measurements were collected during flight operations (L_{eq (flt ops)}), non-flight operations (L_{eq (non-flt ops)}), and over 24-hr periods (L_{eq (24-hr)}). These data were compared to the 70 dBA American Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienists (ACGIH^®) Threshold Limit Value (TLV^®) for “effective quiet” areas intended for temporary threshold shift recovery when personnel live and work in a potentially noise hazardous environment for periods greater than 24?hr. The monitored areas were selected based on personnel occupancy/use during off-duty time periods. Areas were classified by either (1) leisure areas that included mess (eating areas), gyms, lounges, an internet cafe, and the fantail social area or (2) berthing (sleeping) areas. The L_eq measurements in decibels “A” weighted (dBA) were compared to determine significant differences between L_{eq (flt ops)}, L_{eq (non-flt ops)}, and L_{eq (24-hr)} and were compared between leisure area and berthing area. Measured noise levels according to time period ranged as follows: (1) L_{eq (24-hr)}: 70.8–105.4 dBA; (2) L_{eq (flt ops)}: 70–101.2 dBA; and (3) L_{eq (non-flt ops)}: 39.4–104.6 dBA. All area measurements over the 24-hr period and during flight operations and 46.7% of the areas during the non-flight operation time period exceeded the “effective quiet” 70 dBA ACGIH TLV. Mean L_eqs were 15 dBA higher during flight operations compared to non-flight operations in “effective quiet” areas (p?=?0.001). The L_eqs in leisure areas were significantly higher than berthing areas by approximately 21 dBA during non-flight operation periods (p?=?0.001). Results suggest noise levels in “effective quiet” areas frequented by aircraft carrier personnel during off-duty hours when at-sea may inhibit auditory recovery from occupational noise exposures that occur on-duty.