Patient satisfaction, clinical outcomes and oral health-related quality of life after treatment with traditional and modified protocols for complete dentures.
Complete denture
Quality of life
Recall
Satisfaction
Journal
Journal of dental sciences
ISSN: 2213-8862
Titre abrégé: J Dent Sci
Pays: Netherlands
ID NLM: 101293181
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
Jan 2021
Jan 2021
Historique:
received:
05
04
2020
revised:
24
05
2020
entrez:
1
1
2021
pubmed:
2
1
2021
medline:
2
1
2021
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
Conventional complete denture treatment course requires six appointments, but modified protocol only takes four appointments. This study compared the conventional and modified protocol for complete denture fabrication regarding patient satisfaction and clinical outcomes. A total of 24 patients accepted complete denture treatment. According to complete denture treatment protocol, these patients were divided into the conventional group (group C, n = 12) and the modified group (group M, n = 12). Group C used the conventional protocol and required six appointments. Group M used the one-appointment master impression and jaw relation record technique, and it took four appointments. Data of oral health impact profile-14 (OHIP-14), satisfaction scale and the number of recalls in the first year were collected for the statistical analysis. The mean OHIP-14 scores in group C and group M were 13.79 ± 3.81 and 15.33 ± 5.25, respectively. In terms of satisfaction, the mean scores in group C and group M were 8.33 ± 0.61 points and 8.66 ± 1.13 points, respectively. There were no statistically significant differences between the group C and M in terms of participant ratings for satisfaction and OHIP-14. At the same time, the results indicated that group M significantly reduced the number of postinsertion visits ( In terms of OHIP-14 and patients' satisfaction, the modified treatment protocol is comparable to the conventional protocol. Based on the number of recalls in the first year, the modified treatment protocol has a better clinical outcome.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND/PURPOSE
OBJECTIVE
Conventional complete denture treatment course requires six appointments, but modified protocol only takes four appointments. This study compared the conventional and modified protocol for complete denture fabrication regarding patient satisfaction and clinical outcomes.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
METHODS
A total of 24 patients accepted complete denture treatment. According to complete denture treatment protocol, these patients were divided into the conventional group (group C, n = 12) and the modified group (group M, n = 12). Group C used the conventional protocol and required six appointments. Group M used the one-appointment master impression and jaw relation record technique, and it took four appointments. Data of oral health impact profile-14 (OHIP-14), satisfaction scale and the number of recalls in the first year were collected for the statistical analysis.
RESULTS
RESULTS
The mean OHIP-14 scores in group C and group M were 13.79 ± 3.81 and 15.33 ± 5.25, respectively. In terms of satisfaction, the mean scores in group C and group M were 8.33 ± 0.61 points and 8.66 ± 1.13 points, respectively. There were no statistically significant differences between the group C and M in terms of participant ratings for satisfaction and OHIP-14. At the same time, the results indicated that group M significantly reduced the number of postinsertion visits (
CONCLUSION
CONCLUSIONS
In terms of OHIP-14 and patients' satisfaction, the modified treatment protocol is comparable to the conventional protocol. Based on the number of recalls in the first year, the modified treatment protocol has a better clinical outcome.
Identifiants
pubmed: 33384803
doi: 10.1016/j.jds.2020.05.024
pii: S1991-7902(20)30118-5
pmc: PMC7770313
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Pagination
236-240Informations de copyright
© 2020 Association for Dental Sciences of the Republic of China. Publishing services by Elsevier B.V.
Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts
The authors have no conflicts of interest relevant to this article.
Références
J Prosthet Dent. 2017 Oct;118(4):462-467
pubmed: 28385433
J Prosthet Dent. 2015 Jan;113(1):12-6
pubmed: 25311792
Dent Update. 2006 Apr;33(3):134-6, 138-40, 142
pubmed: 16700269
Quintessence Int. 1992 Aug;23(8):547-50
pubmed: 1410259
J Prosthet Dent. 2008 Jan;99(1):66-72
pubmed: 18182188
J Prosthodont. 2010 Oct;19(7):512-6
pubmed: 20723019
J Prosthodont Res. 2009 Jan;53(1):3-10
pubmed: 19318064
Dent Clin North Am. 2004 Jul;48(3):625-40, vi
pubmed: 15261797
Quintessence Int. 2008 Feb;39(2):107-16
pubmed: 18560649
J Prosthet Dent. 2019 Apr;121(4):604-610
pubmed: 30503147
J Dent. 2005 Sep;33(8):659-68
pubmed: 16139697
J Prosthodont. 2014 Apr;23(3):182-91
pubmed: 23890072
J Dent. 2013 Feb;41(2):133-42
pubmed: 23000525
J Prosthodont. 2017 Jun;26(4):267-274
pubmed: 26916810