Oral health-related quality of life after prosthodontic treatment for patients with partial edentulism: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Ali, Zulfiqar; Baker, Sarah R.; Shahrbaf, Shirin; Martín, Nicolás; Vettore, Mário Vianna

doi:10.1016/j.prosdent.2018.03.003

Cited by 127 publications

(112 citation statements)

References 53 publications

(47 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Two studies with a patient material comparable to ours comparing the patient‐reported effect between ISFP and FDP treatments also found that the OHIP‐14 score declined similar or insignificantly slightly more in the ISFP group than the FDP group . Two other studies and two reviews also found no difference in patient‐reported effect between the two treatments or slightly better short‐term effect of the ISFP …”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 66%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Patient‐reported effect in patients receiving implant or tooth‐supported fixed prosthesis

Özhayat

Gotfredsen

2019

J of Oral Rehabilitation

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objectives To compare the patient‐reported effect of treatment with implant‐supported fixed prosthesis (ISFP) and fixed dental prosthesis (FDP) in patients with a small number of tooth losses to replace. Methods From a population of 155 patients receiving either ISFP or FDP, 68 patients were matched in pairs based on gender, number of teeth replaced, zone of replacement, age and number of remaining teeth. The patient‐reported effect was prospectively obtained by measuring change in the short‐form oral health impact (OHIP‐14) from before to one month after treatment. Effect size (ES), standardised response mean (SRM) and a minimal important difference of two units were applied to estimate the magnitude of the change. Results Both the ISFP and FDP groups decreased significantly in OHIP‐14 after treatment (P < .01). The change was not significantly different between the ISFP and FDP groups. The magnitude of the change was for both treatments moderate and slightly higher in the ISFP group (ES = 0.52 and SRM = 0.58) than in the FDP group (ES = 0.48 and SRM = 0.47). Applying the minimal important difference showed that 23 participants in the ISFP group and 21 in the FDP group had good effect. Conclusions The patient‐reported effect of treatment with ISFP or FDP was similar, clinically meaningful and of moderate magnitude in patients with a small number tooth losses to replace.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 66%

“…The patient‐reported effect of both ISFP and FDP has been investigated separately in several studies, and both treatments have shown ability to improve OHRQoL . The few studies that have actually compared the patient‐reported effect between the two treatment modalities report similar effect for the two modalities .…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Patient‐reported effect in patients receiving implant or tooth‐supported fixed prosthesis

Özhayat

Gotfredsen

2019

J of Oral Rehabilitation

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Two recent reviews also looked at the effect and change in OHRQoL after treatment with different modalities for replacement of teeth. One concluded that not enough evidence was accessible to draw any final conclusions, whereas the other concluded that treatment with RDP have lower effect than fixed prostheses, especially in the long run . Our results might appear contradictory to this as the RDP groups seemingly had higher patient‐reported effect than the FDP group.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 56%

“…Even though it has been recommended to use more than one measure of patient‐reported effect, most other studies investigating the patient‐reported effect of oral rehabilitation have used one method only, most often being an OHRQoL questionnaire . A few studies have, however, included global ratings to estimate the important difference in OHIP‐score.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Patient‐reported effect of oral rehabilitation

Özhayat

Gotfredsen

2019

J of Oral Rehabilitation

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Summary Objectives To quantify the patient‐reported effect of oral rehabilitation and investigate aspects associated with this. Methods The patient‐reported effect in participants treated with fixed dental prosthesis (FDP; n = 72) or removable dental prosthesis (RDP; n = 58) was measured using the Oral Health Impact Profile 14 (OHIP‐14) and global oral ratings (GOR) of aesthetics, chewing and comfort before and after treatment and global transition judgements (GTJ) of aesthetics, chewing and comfort after treatment. Explanatory variables included gender, age, if a prosthetic replacement was present before treatment, type of prosthetic treatment performed, number of teeth replaced and zone of the teeth replaced. Results The RDP and FDP treatments both significantly improved the OHIP‐14 score with a moderate to large effect and most participants had good patient‐reported effect. The effect varied depending on the method used. In the bivariate analyses, the number of participants with good effect was higher in the RDP group than the FDP group when using the OHIP‐14 and GOR whereas the effect was higher in the FDP group when using the GTJ. Multiple regression analyses showed that poor chewing ability before treatment was associated with good effect measured by the OHIP‐14 and GOR and that poor effect in chewing ability and RDP treatment was associated with poor effect in comfort measured by GTJ. Functional problems after treatment were associated with no/poor effect. Conclusions Oral rehabilitation with fixed or removable prostheses in general yields good patient‐reported effect. Masticatory aspects highly influence the patient‐reported effect and treatment with RDP is associated with poor effect in oral comfort.

show abstract

“…The ISC studies frequently reported outcome rates exceeding 95%. Meta-analyses found success rates of 96.7% to 97.5% for single-unit restorations and 92.5% to 93.6% for FPD restorations over six to seven years [8,9]. Others shows that both ISC and RCT have superior long-term survival compared with FPD [10 -12].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Dentists and Dental Intern’s Preferences of Root Canal Treatment with Restoration Versus Extraction then Implant-Supported Crown Treatment Plan

Alwadani¹,

Mashyakhy²,

Jali³

et al. 2019

TODENTJ

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objectives: The intent of this study was to evaluate and compare the preferences and treatment choices between dentists and dental interns with regard to the following different treatment modalities: Root Canal Treatment (RCT) with restoration versus extraction with Implant-Supported Crown (ISC) or surgical treatment in relation to the given case scenarios. Methods: The questionnaire was presented as an online survey with a case scenario. The total number of the respondents were 165. The four clinical case scenarios included an anterior and posterior tooth having apical periodontitis, with and without previous RCT. The treatment options were as follows: RCT with restoration, extraction then implant, and surgical treatment. Results: A total of 165 dentists and dental interns were included in this study. A hundred and three 62.4% respondents were dentists, 60; 36.3% were males and 105; 63.7% were females. Most of the respondents graduated from the College of Dentistry, Jazan University (93.9%). The highest percentages and numbers for Anterior Teeth (AT) were selected in related to the RCT and restorations in the four scenarios among gender, dentists, and interns, with no considerable differences. A high percentage of RCT and restoration option was recorded for Posterior Teeth (PT) with no previous restoration and around 50% for the same treatment modality to posterior teeth with previous restorations. For Future Planning Postgraduate Studies (FPPS), it was obvious that most of the selected specialties agreed with the RCT and restorations choice. Conclusion: All dentists and interns in both genders preferred RCT with restorations over extraction, and then ISC in the AT with and without previous RCTs. In the PT with no previous RCT, the participants agreed that RCT with restorations is superior to other choices. Among the FPPS, the respondents demonstrated an absolute agreement to RCT and restorations as a treatment of choice for different scenarios. Clinical Significance: Dentists should preserve the natural teeth by RCT with restoration as the first treatment choice followed by other choices. The nonsurgical approach should always be adopted as a routine measure in PA lesions of endodontic origin. Conservative orthograde endodontic therapy demonstrates favorable outcomes with a regular periodic review and assessment of the healing process of PA lesions.

show abstract

Oral health-related quality of life after prosthodontic treatment for patients with partial edentulism: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Abstract: TFDP and IFDP had short- and long-term positive effects on OHRQoL. RPDs positively affected OHRQoL in the short term. IFDP showed greater short-term improvement in OHRQoL than RPD and TFDP.

Cited by 127 publications

References 53 publications

Patient‐reported effect in patients receiving implant or tooth‐supported fixed prosthesis

Patient‐reported effect in patients receiving implant or tooth‐supported fixed prosthesis

Patient‐reported effect of oral rehabilitation

Dentists and Dental Intern’s Preferences of Root Canal Treatment with Restoration Versus Extraction then Implant-Supported Crown Treatment Plan

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About