PubMed Health⌕ Search

PubMed · 9560727

Hygiene partnering, Part 2.

Abstract

Today's technology is full of magic and delight in the hygiene arena. Throughout the years, dental hygiene has shifted into a thriving career, and hygienists have welcomed the new role with open arms. Innovation, technology, and partnering have also taken the concept of codiagnosis and comprehensive care to a higher level in the hygiene department. These benefits, combined with more sophisticated patient-centered communication skills and team-centered management philosophies will, without doubt, secure the future of dental hygiene departments in practices worldwide. Moreover, smart practices remaining committed to attracting, training, and retaining only high-caliber staff with interdependent, overlapping talent will find the most reward in helping their patients achieve and maintain optimum oral health for a lifetime.

Explore related subjects

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

R Pollack-Simon. 1997. Hygiene partnering, Part 2.. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/9560727/

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related citations

UK national survey of enucleation, evisceration and orbital implant trends.

AIM: To evaluate current clinical practice in the UK in the management of the anophthalmic socket; choice of enucleation, evisceration, type of orbital implant, wrap, motility pegging and complications. METHODS: All consultant ophthalmologists in the UK were surveyed by postal questionnaire. Questions included their practice subspecialty and number of enucleations and eviscerations performed in 2003. Specific questions addressed choice of implant, wrap, motility pegging and complications. RESULTS: 456/896 (51%) consultants responded, of which 162 (35%) had a specific interest in oculoplastics, lacrimal, orbits or oncology. Only 243/456 (53%) did enucleations or eviscerations. 92% inserted an orbital implant after primary enucleation, 69% after non-endophthalmitis evisceration, whereas only 43% did so after evisceration for endophthalmitis (50% as a delayed procedure). 55% used porous orbital implants (porous polyethylene, hydroxyapatite or alumina) as their first choice and 42% used acrylic. Most implants inserted were spherical, sized 18-20 mm in diameter. 57% wrapped the implant after enucleation, using salvaged autogenous sclera (20%), donor sclera (28%) and synthetic Vicryl or Mersilene mesh (42%). A minority (7%) placed motility pegs in selected cases, usually as a secondary procedure. 14% of respondents reported implant exposure for each type of procedure and extrusion was reported by 4% after enucleation and 3% after evisceration. CONCLUSIONS: This survey highlights contemporary anophthalmic socket practice in the UK. Most surgeons use porous orbital implants with a synthetic wrap after enucleation and only few perform motility pegging.

Consultants↗