Biomedical subjects
Publications and source records attributed to P Milward.
This article describes results from one of the sites involved in a multi-centred comparative study designed to assess the performance of a collagen-alginate dressing used in the treatment of leg ulceration. The research methods used in the trial, as well as the results, will be of interest to practising nurses. Those involved in similar work are invited to submit articles to be considered for publication in future issues of this supplement.
Explore the source record for details and available documents.
Many elderly and chronically ill people are cared for in the community. If pressure sores are to be healed and prevented in this setting, equipment must be evaluated and purchased, prevention plans must be standardized and implemented, and staff must be trained to work as a team.
To help combat the risk of patients developing pressure sores while being nursed at home, a new risk calculator has been researched and designed by the wound care specialist and members of the Walsall District Nursing Research Group. This article traces the development of the score and highlights its advantages for assessing the risk of pressure sores in the community.
PURPOSE: The purpose of the present study was to evaluate some important mechanical properties of an experimental silicone material (PM1) to assess its potential as a mouthguard material. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The hardness, tear strength, tensile properties, and energy absorption properties of the silicone material were determined and compared with those of 2 commercially available materials (Bioplast, a polyvinylacetate polyethylene, and Polyshield, a silicone). RESULTS: Bioplast was significantly harder than Polyshield and PM1. Polyshield was significantly harder than PM1. Bioplast had a significantly higher tear strength than both Polyshield and PM1. The tensile strength of Bioplast was significantly greater than that of Polyshield and PM1. PM1 had a significantly higher tensile strength than Polyshield. Bioplast had a significantly lower energy absorption capacity at 500 N than both Polyshield and PM1, with PM1 having a significantly higher value than Polyshield. At 1,000 and 1,500 N, Bioplast had a significantly higher energy absorption than both Polyshield and PM1. CONCLUSION: It was concluded that PM1 showed better energy absorption properties than Polyshield and better energy absorption properties than Bioplast at lower impact forces. PM1 was softer and had better tear and tensile properties than Polyshield. The results of the present study suggest that the new material has a good potential for use as a mouthguard material.
Explore the source record for details and available documents.
Explore the source record for details and available documents.
Explore the source record for details and available documents.
Explore the source record for details and available documents.