A comparative evaluation of chewing efficiency, masticatory bite force, and patient satisfaction between conventional denture and implant-supported mandibular overdenture: An in vivo study

Purpose: The purpose of this within-subject crossover clinical trial was to compare and evaluate the chewing efficiency, masticatory bite force, and patient satisfaction with conventional dentures and two implant-retained mandible overdentures after 4 weeks of usage. Method: This within-subject crossover clinical trial was carried out in the Department of Prosthodontics in K.D Dental College and Hospital. A total 15 patients were selected for the study. To report the changes in chewing efficiency by chewing 6gms of peanuts with 40 chewing strokes and comparing the particle size of the chewed material between two implant retained mandibular overdenture with that of conventional denture using micro vu excel gantry type visual measurement machine. To report changes in masticatory bite force after transition of conventional complete denture patient to implant retained overdenture after using the prosthesis for four weeks each and recorded by digital transducer. To assess the patient satisfaction after transition of conventional complete denture patient to implant retained mandibular overdenture with help of OHIP edent patient satisfaction questionnaire. Results: The chewing efficiency for implant retained overdenture increased significantly than that of conventional denture. The particle size decreased to 76.34% for implant supported overdenture than that of conventional denture. The chewing strokes required by conventional denture was 69 strokes and that by implant supported overdenture which was 40 strokes to get the same mean particle size. The patients satisfaction after receiving the implant retained overdenture was significantly higher than that of complete denture. Conclusion: The provision of two mandibular implants significantly improves measures of oral function and better quality of life for edentulous patients

Test of a Homeopathic Algorithm for COVID-19: the Importance of a Broad Perspective

Abstract Background/Objective Most of the symptoms of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) are covered by large repertory rubrics and hence many remedies have been proposed as “genus epidemicus”. The aim of this study was to combine the information from various data collections to prepare a COVID-19 Bayesian mini-repertory/an algorithm-based application (app) and test it. Methods In July 2021, 1,161 COVID-19 cases from 100 practitioners globally were combined. These data were used to calculate “condition-confined” likelihood ratios (LRs) for 59 symptoms of COVID-19. Out of these, 35 symptoms of the 11 medicines that had at least 20 cases each were considered. The information was entered in a spreadsheet (algorithm) to calculate combined LRs of specific combinations of symptoms. The algorithm contained the medicines Arsenicum album, Belladonna, Bryonia alba, Camphora, Gelsemium sempervirens, Hepar sulphuris, Mercurius solubilis, Nux vomica, Phosphorus, Pulsatilla and Rhus toxicodendron. To test concordance, the doctors were then invited to re-enter the symptoms of their cases into this algorithm. Results The algorithm was re-tested on 358 cases, and concordance was seen in 288 cases. On analysis of the data, bias was noticed in the Merc group, which was therefore excluded from the algorithm. The remaining 10 medicines, representing 81.8% of all cases, were included in the preparation of the next version of the homeopathic mini-repertory and app. Conclusion The Bayesian mini-repertory and app is based on qualitative clinical experiences of various doctors in COVID-19 and gives indications for specific medicines for common COVID-19 symptoms