Materials and Methods: This cross-sectional study was conducted among the GDPs of Karachi. A questionnaire was designed to collect data from 100 GDPs. The questionnaire included general/demographic information (practitioner's education, experience, and place of practice) and an average number of fixed prosthesis constructed by the GDP. The questionnaire was further categorized to evaluate the knowledge/practice of pontic design selection and latest recommendations.
Results: For the maxillary anterior segment, the ridge lap pontic was the most common (32%) followed by the modified ridge lap (28%). In the maxillary posterior segment, the ridge lap pontic was the most common (37%) followed by sanitary design (34%). For the mandibular anterior segment, the modified ridge lap (50%) was the most common followed by ridge lap pontic (17%). In case of the mandibular posterior segment, the sanitary design (34%) was the most common followed by ridge lap pontic (30%).
Conclusions: The pontic design selection for the fixed prosthesis is a neglected domain. The contemporary guidelines are not followed with full spirit by the GDPs leading to wide variations in the pontic design selection.
PURPOSE: To compare patients' and parents' perceptions of physical attributes (PAs) of adolescent idiopathic scoliosis (AIS) patients and to report any correlations between their perceptions and Scoliosis Research Society-22r (SRS-22r) scores.
OVERVIEW OF LITERATURE: Few studies have looked into the differences between patients' and parents' perceptions of their appearance.
METHODS: AIS patient-parent pairs (n=170) were recruited. The patients' and parents' perceptions of six PAs were evaluated: waist asymmetry (WA), rib hump (RH), shoulder asymmetry (SA), neck tilt, breast asymmetry (BrA), and chest prominence. These PAs were ranked, and an aggregate PA (Agg-PA) score was derived from a score assigned to the attribute (6 for the most important PA and 1 for the least important). The patients also completed the SRS-22r questionnaire.
RESULTS: Ninety-nine patients (58.2%) and 71 patients (41.8%) had thoracic and lumbar major curves, respectively. WA was ranked first by 54 patients (31.8%) and 50 parents (29.4%), whereas RH was ranked first by 50 patients (29.4%) and 38 parents (22.4%). The overall Agg-PA scores were similar for patients and parents (p>0.05). However, for thoracic major curves (TMCs) >40°, a significant difference was noted between the Agg-PA scores of patients and parents for SA (3.5±1.6 vs. 4.2±1.6, p=0.041) and BrA (3.0±1.6 vs. 2.2±1.3, p=0.006). For TMCs <40°, a significant difference was found between the Agg-PA scores of patients and parents for WA (3.7±1.6 vs. 4.4±1.5, p=0.050). BrA was negatively correlated with total SRS-22r score.
CONCLUSIONS: There were no significant differences between patients and parents in their ranking of the most important PAs. For TMCs >40°, there were significant differences in the Agg-PA for SA and BrA. Pa¬tients were more concerned about BrA and parents were more concerned about SA. Patients' perception of the six PAs had weak correlation with SRS-22r scores.