M A Awad1, J S Feine. 1. McGill University Faculty of Dentistry, Montreal, Quebec, Canada.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: Previous research has shown that patients' evaluations of their prostheses correlate poorly with the clinicians' assessments, as well as with intraoral anatomic factors. It has been recommended that researchers conduct more studies that use patient satisfaction as the primary outcome measure in treatment evaluation and that more attention be paid to understanding exactly what measures of patient satisfaction represent. In this study, the relationship between patients' ratings of general satisfaction and their perceptions of different aspects of mandibular prostheses is investigated. METHODS:One hundred and twenty subjects applied to participate in a randomized controlled clinical trial comparing two types of mandibular prostheses: conventional dentures and implant prostheses. At baseline, they were asked to rate on 100 mm visual analog scales (VAS) factors that edentulous patients indicated were important to them. These included comfort, ability to chew, stability, esthetics, ability to speak and ease of cleaning of their conventional dentures. Subjects were also asked to rate their general satisfaction with their dentures. In addition, they selected the one quality of their denture that they considered to be most important. RESULTS: Multiple regression methods revealed that gender, as well as patients' ratings of comfort, stability, esthetics, ability to chew and ability to speak with their prostheses contributed significantly to general satisfaction (F<0.0001). Furthermore, 89% of the variation in ratings of general satisfaction was explained by these factors. In addition, patients who considered ability to chew as the most important factor associated with their dentures rated their general satisfaction significantly higher than the other subjects (P=0.0003). CONCLUSION: Patient satisfaction with conventional dental prostheses is highly dependent on gender, and the appearance and functionality of the appliance. The combined effect of these factors explained most of the variation in the satisfaction ratings.
RCT Entities:
OBJECTIVES: Previous research has shown that patients' evaluations of their prostheses correlate poorly with the clinicians' assessments, as well as with intraoral anatomic factors. It has been recommended that researchers conduct more studies that use patient satisfaction as the primary outcome measure in treatment evaluation and that more attention be paid to understanding exactly what measures of patient satisfaction represent. In this study, the relationship between patients' ratings of general satisfaction and their perceptions of different aspects of mandibular prostheses is investigated. METHODS: One hundred and twenty subjects applied to participate in a randomized controlled clinical trial comparing two types of mandibular prostheses: conventional dentures and implant prostheses. At baseline, they were asked to rate on 100 mm visual analog scales (VAS) factors that edentulouspatients indicated were important to them. These included comfort, ability to chew, stability, esthetics, ability to speak and ease of cleaning of their conventional dentures. Subjects were also asked to rate their general satisfaction with their dentures. In addition, they selected the one quality of their denture that they considered to be most important. RESULTS: Multiple regression methods revealed that gender, as well as patients' ratings of comfort, stability, esthetics, ability to chew and ability to speak with their prostheses contributed significantly to general satisfaction (F<0.0001). Furthermore, 89% of the variation in ratings of general satisfaction was explained by these factors. In addition, patients who considered ability to chew as the most important factor associated with their dentures rated their general satisfaction significantly higher than the other subjects (P=0.0003). CONCLUSION:Patient satisfaction with conventional dental prostheses is highly dependent on gender, and the appearance and functionality of the appliance. The combined effect of these factors explained most of the variation in the satisfaction ratings.
Authors: Samir Abou-Ayash; Nadine von Maltzahn; Nicole Passia; Sandra Freitag-Wolf; Daniel R Reissmann; Ralph G Luthardt; Torsten Mundt; Michael Raedel; Peter Rammelsberg; Stefan Wolfart; Matthias Kern Journal: Clin Oral Investig Date: 2019-06-27 Impact factor: 3.573
Authors: Janine C Gray; Nuria Navarro-Coy; Sue H Pavitt; Claire Hulme; Mary Godfrey; Helen L Craddock; Paul A Brunton; Sarah Brown; Sean Dillon; Gillian Dukanovic; Catherine Fernandez; Jonathan Wright; Howard Collier; Shirley Swithenbank; Carol Lee; T Paul Hyde Journal: BMC Oral Health Date: 2012-08-31 Impact factor: 2.757