Patient‐reported effect of oral rehabilitation

Abstract

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 FDP (n=72) or RDP (n=58) was measured using the Oral Health Impact Profile 14 (OHIP‐14) and global oral ratings (GOR) of esthetics, chewing and comfort before and after treatment and global transition judgments (GTJ) of esthetics, 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.

This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.

from A via a.sfakia on Inoreader https://ift.tt/2LknKMA