• Journal of dental hygiene science
• /
• v.12 no.6
• /
• pp.607-616
• /
• 2012

The purpose of this study was to examine the self-rated oral health status and oral health concern of 6,094 adults over the age of 19, which were both related to subjective oral health awareness, based on the second-year (2008) raw data of the 4th National Health and Nutrition Survey. 1. As for subjective oral health awareness, 49.4 percent replied they were in bad oral health when they were asked about self-rated oral health status. Regarding oral health concern, 62.6 percent answered they were sort of concerned about oral health. 2. As to oral health indexes by sociodemographic characteristics, there were statistically significant differences in oral health indexes according to gender, age, academic credential, monthly mean household income, frequency of eating between meals and toothbrushing frequency. Smoking made no statistically significant differences to oral health indexes (p<0.000). 3. Concerning self-rated oral health status by sociodemographic characteristics, no significant differences were found according to gender, age and academic credential, and there were statistically significant differences according to monthly mean household income and smoking (p<0.000), frequency of eating between meals (p<0.018), toothbrushing frequency (p<0.003). 4. In relation to oral health concern by sociodemographic characteristics, gender and smoking made no significant differences, and statistically significant differences were found according to age (p<0.003), academic credential, monthly mean household income, frequency of eating between meals and toothbrushing frequency (p<0.000). 5. In regard to the relationship between subjective oral health awareness and oral health indexes, none of the oral health indexes had a significant relationship to self-rated oral health status, and there were statistically significant differences in oral health concern according to functioning teeth index (p<0.011) and community periodontal index (p<0.017).

• The Korean Journal of Air & Space Law and Policy
• /
• v.34 no.1
• /
• pp.159-201
• /
• 2019

Along with Annex 14 Volume I establishment in 1951 and the set-up of restriction surface around the runway, aeronautical technique and navigation performance achieved dazzling growth, and the safety and precision of navigation greatly improved. However, restrictions on surrounding obstacles are still valid for safe operation of an aircraft. Standards and criteria for securing safety of aircraft operating around and on airport is stated in Annex 11 Air Traffic Services and Annex 14 Aerodrome etc. In particular, Annex 14 Volume I presents the criteria for limiting obstacles around an airport, such as natural obstacles such as trees, mountains and hills to prevent collisions between aircraft and ground obstacles, and artificial obstacles such as buildings and structures. On the other hand, Annex 14 Volume I, in the application of the obstacles limitation surfaces, apply the exception criteria, as it may not be possible to remove obstacles that violate the criteria if the aeronautical study determines that they do not impair the safety and regularity of aircraft operation. Aeronautical study has been applied and implemented in various countries including United States, Canada and Europe etc. accordingly, Korea established and amended some provisions of the Enforcement rules of the Aviation Act and established the Aeronautical study guidelines to approve exceptions. However, because ICAO does not provide specific guidelines on procedures and methods of Aeronautical study, countries conducting aeronautical study have established and applied their own procedures and methods. Reflecting this realistic situation, at the 12th World Navigation Conference and at the 38th General Assembly, the contracting States demanded a reexamination of the criteria for current obstacle limitation surfaces and methods of aeronautical study, and the ICAO dedicated a team of experts to prepare new standard. This study, in line with the movement of international change in obstacle limitation surface and aeronautical study, aims to compare and analyze current domestic and external standards on obstacle limitation and height limits, while looking at methods, procedure and systems for aeronautical study. In addition, expecting that aeronautical study will be used realistically and universally in assessing the impact of obstacles, we would recommend the institutional improvement of the aeronautical study along with the development of quantitative analysis methods using the navigation data in the current aeronautical study.