Teresa Palomares1, Javier Montero2, Eva M Rosel3, Ramón Del-Castillo4, Juan I Rosales4. 1. Doctoral student, Department of Stomatology, Faculty of Dentistry, University of Granada, Granada, Spain. 2. Tenured Lecturer, Prosthodontics, School of Dentistry, University of Salamanca, Salamanca, Spain. Electronic address: javimont@usal.es. 3. Associate Professor, Prosthodontics, Department of Stomatology, Faculty of Dentistry, University of Granada, Granada, Spain. 4. Tenured Lecturer Professor, Prosthodontics, Department of Stomatology, Faculty of Dentistry, University of Granada, Granada, Spain.
Abstract
STATEMENT OF PROBLEM: The impact of conventional prosthetic treatment on both the objective and subjective assessments of mastication as well as on well-being is unclear. PURPOSE: The purpose of this clinical study was to compare the impact on oral health-related quality of life and masticatory function in participants treated with conventional dental prostheses. MATERIAL AND METHODS: A total of 72 patients requiring prosthetic rehabilitation were enrolled by referral from the Faculty of Dentistry at the University of Granada, Spain. At baseline, demographic, behavioral, and clinical (prosthetic status, occlusal units) data were collected. In addition, the scores for quality of life, oral satisfaction, masticatory ability (Leake index), and masticatory performance (after 5, 10, and 15 cycles of bicolored chewing gum) were obtained. These records were obtained again at 6 to 8 weeks after insertion of the prostheses. RESULTS: The findings revealed that patients treated with fixed prostheses had better quality of life and better masticatory function than patients treated with removable prostheses. This result was even more pronounced for those treated with complete dentures. For all items, most of the treated patients improved the quality of life (average, 8.6 of the 4 items), although only between 5% and 15% of patients, especially those with a removable prosthesis, commented on functional impact after receiving treatment. Generally, masticatory performance was improved between 7% and 18% and was highly correlated not only with the number of natural teeth (r=0.61) and occlusal units (r=0.51) but also with subjective variables such as mastication satisfaction (r=0.31), impact on quality of life (r=0.30), or masticatory ability (r=0.30). CONCLUSIONS: Treatment with fixed prostheses achieved better results regarding quality of life, oral satisfaction, and masticatory function than treatment with removable prostheses. A moderate but significant correlation exists between the objective and subjective assessments of the masticatory functions.
STATEMENT OF PROBLEM: The impact of conventional prosthetic treatment on both the objective and subjective assessments of mastication as well as on well-being is unclear. PURPOSE: The purpose of this clinical study was to compare the impact on oral health-related quality of life and masticatory function in participants treated with conventional dental prostheses. MATERIAL AND METHODS: A total of 72 patients requiring prosthetic rehabilitation were enrolled by referral from the Faculty of Dentistry at the University of Granada, Spain. At baseline, demographic, behavioral, and clinical (prosthetic status, occlusal units) data were collected. In addition, the scores for quality of life, oral satisfaction, masticatory ability (Leake index), and masticatory performance (after 5, 10, and 15 cycles of bicolored chewing gum) were obtained. These records were obtained again at 6 to 8 weeks after insertion of the prostheses. RESULTS: The findings revealed that patients treated with fixed prostheses had better quality of life and better masticatory function than patients treated with removable prostheses. This result was even more pronounced for those treated with complete dentures. For all items, most of the treated patients improved the quality of life (average, 8.6 of the 4 items), although only between 5% and 15% of patients, especially those with a removable prosthesis, commented on functional impact after receiving treatment. Generally, masticatory performance was improved between 7% and 18% and was highly correlated not only with the number of natural teeth (r=0.61) and occlusal units (r=0.51) but also with subjective variables such as mastication satisfaction (r=0.31), impact on quality of life (r=0.30), or masticatory ability (r=0.30). CONCLUSIONS: Treatment with fixed prostheses achieved better results regarding quality of life, oral satisfaction, and masticatory function than treatment with removable prostheses. A moderate but significant correlation exists between the objective and subjective assessments of the masticatory functions.