Bar-clip versus magnet-retained auricular prostheses: A prospective clinical study with a 3-year follow-up

Visser, Anita; Noorda, Willem D; Linde, Annemiek; Raghoebar, Gerry M.; Vissink, Arjan

doi:10.1016/j.prosdent.2019.05.033

Cited by 8 publications

(9 citation statements)

References 12 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Quality of life (n=14) [4][5][6][7][8][9]32,39,[59][60][61][62][63][64] Condition specific (specific to facial prostheses) (n=6) [4][5][6][7][8][9] Condition specific (not specific to facial prostheses) (n=5) 39,[59][60][61][62] Generic (n=7) 4,5,32,39,59,63,64 Psychologic health (n=6) 4,32,[65][66][67][68] Psychologic health (n=6) 4,32,[65][66][67][68] Psychosocial (n=1) 67 Other patient reported (n=6) 32,41,44,61,69,70 Preference ...…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Clinical indicators (n=22) 8,33,39,44,47,54,57,58,65,69,70,72,73,[79][80][81][82][83][84][85][86][87] Prosthesis survival (n=10) 33,39,57,73,[79][80][81][82][83][84] Prosthesis survival/lifespan (n=9) 33,39,57,73,[79][80][81][82][83] Prosthesis failure (n=1) 84…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Aftercare (n=5) 8,33,44,79,80 Not applicable Complications (n=9) 47,58,65,70,72,73,79,81,85 Not applicable Service delivery (n=1) 86 Costs to the hospital (n=1) 86 Procedural characteristics (n=1) 86 Other objective tools (n=4) 54,69,85,87 Symmetry (n=3) 54,85,87 Function (n=1) 69 Studies may use multiple outcome measures and therefore may be included more than once. Not applicable Single-item satisfaction scale 5,31-33 Self-designed condition-specific questionnaires proposed by authors (or source not referenced) 5,32,[34][35][36][37][38][39][40][41][42][43][44][45][46][47][48][49][50][51] Condition 55 -Questionnaires for partial and complete denture treatment 2 -Questio...…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…For example, patient satisfaction was evaluated by 31 studies; of which, 20 studies created selfdesigned condition-specific questionnaires, 7 used other authors' questionnaires (in the original or a modified form), 3 used single-item scales, and 2 collected data from case note review. Condition-specific questionnaires developed and validated for other conditions were found 33,39,57,73,[79][80][81][82][83] Reasons for replacement 33,39,73,79,80 Prosthesis failure Number of failures (prostheses that are not retained by implants) 84 Aftercare Not applicable Self-designed data collection 8,33,44,79,80 Complications Not applicable Biological complications 47,58,70,72,79,85 Technical complications 65,72,73,81,85 Service delivery Costs to the hospital Cost of the prosthesis, operating room, inpatient hospital stay and miscellaneous costs. 86 Procedural characteristics Number of surgical procedures, length of stay within hospital.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Linear Analog Self-Assessment (LASA) 32 or LASA-12 5 Short Form 8 (SF-8 Health Survey), 5 SF-12 Health Survey, 39,63 or SF-36 Health Survey 4,59 World Health Organization Quality of Life Instrument (WHOQOL-BREF) 64 Psychological Cornell Medical Index Questionnaire 65 Self-designed condition-specific questionnaires created by authors 32,65,67,68 Condition-specific questionnaires modified from Sela and Lowental 1980 66 Psychosocial Childhood Experience Questionnaire 67 Other patient reported Preference Preference for attachment system 44 Appearance/function Nasal Appearance and Function Evaluation Questionnaire 61…”

Section: Genericmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 4 more Smart Citations

Outcome measures in facial prosthesis research: A systematic review

Jablonski

Veale

Coward

et al. 2021

The Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Statement of problem. Facial prosthesis research uses a wide variety of outcome measures, which results in challenges when comparing the effectiveness of interventions among studies. Consensus is lacking regarding the most appropriate and meaningful outcome measures to use in facial prosthesis research to capture important perspectives. Purpose. The purpose of the systematic review was to identify and synthesize outcome measures used in facial prosthesis research. Material and methods. Electronic searches were performed in 11 databases (including nonpeer-reviewed literature). The citations were searched, and expert societies were contacted to identify additional studies. Inclusion criteria comprised studies of participants with facial defects who required or had received prosthetic rehabilitation with an external facial prosthesis. Exclusion criteria comprised participants with ocular prostheses, case reports, case series with fewer than 5 participants, laboratory-based studies, and studies published before 1980. Study selection was performed independently by 2 reviewers. Discrepancies were resolved through discussion or by a third reviewer. Outcome measures were synthesized with a categorization approach based on the perspective, theme, and subtheme of the outcome measures. Quality assessment was performed with an appraisal tool that enabled evaluation of studies with diverse designs. Results. Database searching identified 13 058 records, and 7406 remained after duplications were removed. After initial screening, 189 potentially relevant records remained, and 186 full texts were located (98% retrieval rate). After full-text screening, 124 records were excluded. Citation searches and contact with expert societies identified 4 further records. In total, 69 articles (grouped into 65 studies) were included. Studies were categorized as per the perspective of their outcome measures, with the following findings: patient-reported (74% of studies), clinical indicators (34%), clinician-reported (8%), multiple viewpoints (6%), and independent observer-reported (3%). Patient-reported outcome measures included tools to assess satisfaction, quality of life, and psychologic health. Variability in the choice of outcome measures was evident among the studies, with many self-designed, unvalidated, condition-specific questionnaires reported. A greater number of outcome measure themes emerged over time; themes such as service delivery and health state utility have recently been evaluated. Conclusions. Over the past 40 years, facial prosthesis research has focused on patient-reported outcome measures. Outcome measures relating to other perspectives have been used less frequently, although new themes appear to be emerging in the literature. Future research should use outcome measures with appropriate measurement properties for use with facial prosthetics.

show abstract