Reliabilität von retrospektiven Berufsverlaufsdaten. Ein Vergleich zwischen dem öffentlichen Dienst und der Privatwirtschaft anhand von Panel-Daten

Im vorliegenden Beitrag wird die Zuverlässigkeit retrospektiver Angaben der Befragten zu beruflichen Tätigkeiten in ihrem Berufsverlauf untersucht. Insbesondere ist ausgehend von einem Befund von De Graaf und Wegener (1989) zu klären, ob generell Beschäftigte des öffentlichen Dienstes ihren Berufsverlauf unzuverlässiger erinnern als Staatsbeschäftigte. Es wird davon ausgegangen, dass gerade Beamte aufgrund der institutionellen Besonderheiten ihrer Beschäftigung größere Schwierigkeiten haben, ihren Berufsverlauf konsistent zu rekonstruieren als andere Befragte. Empirische Analysen von Panel-Daten erhärten diese Vermutung, was die Anzahl der beruflichen Tätigkeiten anbelangt. Jedoch machen Beamte zu anderen Attributen ihres Berufsverlaufs ebenso zuverlässige Angaben wie andere Befragte auch. Diese beamtenspezifischen Erinnerungsprobleme sind bei zukünftigen Erhebungen mittels ereignisorientierter Befragungsinstrumente zu berücksichtigen.

Removable dentures with implant support in strategic positions followed for up to 8 years

PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to analyze prosthetic maintenance in partially edentulous patients with removable prostheses supported by teeth and strategic implants. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Sixty patients with removable partial prostheses and combined tooth-implant support were identified within the time period from 1998 to 2006. One group consisted of 42 patients (planned group) with a reduced residual dentition and in need of removable partial dentures (RPDs) or overdentures in the maxilla and/or mandible. They were admitted consecutively for treatment. Due to missing teeth in strategic important positions, one or two implants were placed to improve symmetrical denture support and retention. The majority of residual teeth exhibited an impaired structural integrity and therefore were provided with root copings for denture retention. A few vital teeth were used for telescopic crowns. The anchorage system for the strategic implants was selected accordingly. A second group of 18 patients (repair group) wearing RPDs with the loss of one abutment tooth due to biologic or mechanical failure was identified. These abutment teeth were replaced by 21 implants, and patients continued to wear their original prostheses. The observation time for planned and repair groups was 12 months to 8 years. All patients followed a regular maintenance schedule. Technical or biologic complications with supporting teeth or implants and prosthetic service were registered regularly. RESULTS: Three maxillary implants were lost after loading and three roots with copings had to be removed. Biologic problems included caries and periodontal/peri-implant infection with a significantly higher incidence in the repair group (P < .05). Technical complications with the dentures were rather frequent in both groups, mostly related to the anchorage system (matrices) of root copings and implants. Maintenance and complications were observed more frequently in the first year after delivery of the denture than in the following 3 years (P < .05). No denture had to be remade. CONCLUSIONS: The placement of a few implants allows for maintaining a compromised residual dentition for support of RPDs. The combination of root and implant support facilitates treatment planning and enhances designing the removable denture. It also proves to be a practical rescue method. Technical problems with the anchorage system were frequent, particularly in the first year after delivery of the dentures.

Nest use is influenced by the positions of nests and drinkers in aviaries.

The influence of the nest location and the placement of nipple drinkers on nest use by laying hens in a commercial aviary was assessed. Twenty pens in a laying hen house were equipped with the same commercial aviary system, but the pens differed in the nest location and the placement of nipple drinkers. Nests were placed along the walls in 10 pens, and nipple drinkers were installed in front of the nests in 5 of these pens. The other 10 pens were equipped with nests placed on a tier within the aviary (integrated nests). Nipple drinkers were installed in front of the nests in 5 of these pens. A total of 225 Lohmann Selected Leghorns were housed per pen. The hens were offered 4 nests per pen: 2 facing the service corridor of the laying hen house and 2 facing the outdoor area. The numbers of nest eggs and mislaid eggs were counted daily per pen. At 25, 36, and 43 wk of age, the nest platforms were videotaped and the behavior of laying hens in front of the nests was analyzed. The nest location affected the stationary and locomotive behaviors in front of the nests. Hens in front of the integrated nests and the nests with drinkers displayed more stationary behaviors than hens in front of wall-placed nests or nests without drinkers. No difference in the number of nest eggs could be detected, but the integration of the nests inside the aviary led to a more even distribution of hens while nest searching. In the pens with wall-placed nests, significantly more hens laid eggs in the nests at the wall near the service corridor than at the wall near the outdoor area. Due to this imbalance, crowding in front of the preferred nests occurred and pushing and agonistic interactions on the nest platforms were significantly more frequent. Placement of nipple drinkers in front of nests had no effect on the number of eggs laid in those nests.