Oral Health and Preventive Dentistry, 1/2020
Open Access Online OnlyDOI: 10.3290/j.ohpd.a44444, PubMed-ID: 32618459Seiten: 363-371, Sprache: Englisch
Purpose: No information is available on the perception of the quality of care in patients treated for periodontitis. The purpose of this article was to assess how periodontitis-affected patients perceive the quality of periodontal treatment (PT) and to measure the factors which may influence it.
Materials and Methods: 306 subjects who completed PT were invited to participate. Questionnaires and visual analogic scales (VAS) evaluating perception of quality of care, symptoms, and oral health related quality of life (OHRQoL) were handed out. Oral and periodontal indicators were collected before and after treatment. The impact of different factors on perception of quality was assessed with a regression model.
Results: Quality evaluation was high yet unrelated for both patients and clinicians (p = 0.983). Quality was negatively influenced by the number of residual oral infections (p < 0.001), patient's age (p = 0.07) and presence of residual pain at completion of PT (p = 0.02). Professionalism, kindness of the staff and communication skills were the characteristics mostly appreciated. The OHRQoL was influenced by the number of residual teeth (p < 0.001), increasing age of patients (p = 0.08), number of residual infections (p < 0.01) and pain (p = 0.04).
Conclusions: Patients' quality perception appeared to be influenced by clinical and emotional aspects. Oral care providers should be aware of the impact of non-clinical factors in patients' appreciation of quality of treatment.
Schlagwörter: oral health related quality of life, periodontitis, quality of care
Quintessence International, 9/2017
DOI: 10.3290/j.qi.a38863, PubMed-ID: 28849806Seiten: 701-709, Sprache: Englisch
The prosthodontic management of complex rehabilitations requires several stages of treatment including one or more provisional restorations. The design and adjustments of the provisional are made to achieve an optimal functional and esthetic outcome for the patient. However, the adjustments needed are both time and cost consuming. Therefore, once a satisfactory provisional is made, the information should not be lost during the following stages of treatment. The purpose of this clinical case is to illustrate "digital cross-mounting," a procedure used to precisely transfer information from the provisional to the final fixed rehabilitation in a digital workflow.
Schlagwörter: cross-mounting, digital workflow, full-arch rehabilitation, intraoral scanner, monolithic zirconia
International Journal of Oral Implantology, 4/2015
PubMed-ID: 26669549Seiten: 397-403, Sprache: Englisch
Purpose: To propose a method to measure the esthetics of the smile and to report its validation by means of an intra-rater and inter-rater agreement analysis.
Materials and methods: Ten variables were chosen as determinants for the esthetics of a smile: smile line and facial midline, tooth alignment, tooth deformity, tooth dischromy, gingival dischromy, gingival recession, gingival excess, gingival scars and diastema/missing papillae. One examiner consecutively selected seventy smile pictures, which were in the frontal view. Ten examiners, with different levels of clinical experience and specialties, applied the proposed assessment method twice on the selected pictures, independently and blindly. Intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) and Fleiss' kappa) statistics were performed to analyse the intra-rater and inter-rater agreement.
Results: Considering the cumulative assessment of the Smile Esthetic Index (SEI), the ICC value for the inter-rater agreement of the 10 examiners was 0.62 (95% CI: 0.51 to 0.72), representing a substantial agreement. Intra-rater agreement ranged from 0.86 to 0.99. Inter-rater agreement (Fleiss' kappa statistics) calculated for each variable ranged from 0.17 to 0.75.
Conclusion: The SEI was a reproducible method, to assess the esthetic component of the smile, useful for the diagnostic phase and for setting appropriate treatment plans.
Schlagwörter: classification, diagnosis, esthetics, index, smile
International Journal of Esthetic Dentistry (DE), 3/2015
Seiten: 404-419, Sprache: Deutsch
Bei Rehabilitationen des gesamten Kiefers ist besonders die Phase der provisorischen Versorgung wichtig für die Bestimmung der korrekten individuellen Okklusion, Kieferrelation und Ästhetik des Patienten. Dabei ist es schwierig, diese Informationen auf die definitive Restauration zu übertragen. Es gibt bereits mehrere Techniken, mit denen die Informationen von festsitzenden zahnoder implantatgetragenen Provisorien auf definitive Restaurationen übertragen werden können. Im vorliegenden Beitrag wird der Vorschlag der Autoren für eine Technik beschrieben, mit deren Hilfe Informationen von herausnehmbaren Prothesen auf implantatgetragenen Zahnersatz übertragen werden können.
International Journal of Esthetic Dentistry (EN), 3/2015
PubMed-ID: 26171445Seiten: 428-443, Sprache: Englisch
When dealing with full-arch rehabilitation, the provisional phase is important in order to define the correct occlusal, intermaxillary, and esthetic relationships for each individual patient. In these cases, it is difficult to transfer this information to the final restorations. Several techniques have been developed to transfer the information from tooth- or implant-supported fixed provisionals to the definitive rehabilitations. The present article describes a technique proposed by the authors to transfer the information from a removable prosthesis to an implant-supported restoration.
International Journal of Oral Implantology, 1/2011
PubMed-ID: 21594218Seiten: 39-45, Sprache: Englisch
Purpose: To evaluate the influence of cigarette smoking on the survival of dental implants with a retrospective observational study of 5 years.
Materials and Methods: A total of 1727 consecutively treated patients at four private practices were divided into non-smokers (NS group, 1178 patients) and smokers (S group; 549 patients) according to what they declared prior to implant placement. Non-smokers received 4460 implants and 2583 implant-supported prostheses, whereas smokers received 2260 implants and 1292 implantsupported prostheses. Various implant systems and procedures were used. Outcome measures were prosthesis and implant survival.
Results: Over the 5 years after loading, 159 (17%) non-smokers and 91 (13%) smokers were lost to follow-up; 20 (0.9%) prostheses could not be placed or failed in 15 non-smokers and 12 prostheses (1.2%) could not be placed or failed in 12 smokers. One hundred and twelve (2.9%) implants failed in 105 non-smokers and 107 (5.5%) implants failed in 75 smokers. Most of the implant failures (90%) occurred before implant loading. Fitting a logistic regression for early implant failures and total implant failures, taking into account the clustering of implants in patients, there were no statistically significant differences for prosthesis failures (P value not calculated as too few failures) and early implant failures between the two groups (P = 0.13). However, when considering all implant failures up to 5 years after loading, significantly more failures (5.5%) occurred in smokers compared with non-smokers (2.9%) (OR 1.72; 95% CI 1.20 to 2.50; P = 0.003).
Conclusions: Due to the retrospective nature of this study, conclusions have to be interpreted with caution. Five years after loading, smokers experienced almost twice as many implant failures compared with non-smokers. Non-statistically significant trends in favour of non-smokers were observed for early implant failures and prosthesis failures.
Schlagwörter: dental implants, prognosis, smoking
International Journal of Oral Implantology, 4/2010
PubMed-ID: 21180683Seiten: 307-314, Sprache: Englisch
Aim: To evaluate the outcome of dental implants placed in patients with a history of periodontitis. Patients with no or mild history of periodontitis served as controls.
Materials and methods: A total of 1727 patients were consecutively treated in four private practices. Patients were divided into three groups according to their initial periodontal conditions assessed with a modified periodontal screening and recording (PSR) index: 630 patients were in the severe periodontitis (SP) group, 839 in the moderate periodontitis (MP) group, and 258 had no periodontitis (NP). Patients requiring periodontal treatment were treated prior to implantation. Various implant systems and procedures were used. In total, 3260 implants and 1707 implantsupported prostheses were placed in the SP group, 2813 implants and 1744 implant-supported prostheses in the MP group, and 647 implants and 424 implant-supported prostheses in the NP group. Mixed implant-tooth supported prostheses (98 prostheses in 89 patients) were not considered. Outcome measures were prosthesis and implant survival.
Results: Two-hundred and fifty patients were lost to follow-up 5 years after loading. Regarding prosthesis failures, 13 prostheses could not be placed or failed in 13 patients of the SP group (0.8%), 11 prostheses could not be placed or failed in 9 patients of the MP group (0.7%), and 3 prostheses failed in 3 patients of the NP group (0.9%). For implant failures, 130 (4.5%) implants failed in the SP group, 74 (3.1%) implants failed in the MP group, and 15 (3.0%) implants failed in the NP group. Most of the implant failures (90%) occurred before implant loading. Fitting a logistic regression for early implant failures and total implant failures, taking into account the clustering of implants in patients, there were no statistically significant differences between the three PSR groups (P > 0.05).
Conclusions: Owing to the retrospective nature of this study, conclusions need to be interpreted with caution. A previous history of periodontal disease may not have a significant impact on implant failures up to 5 years after loading.
Schlagwörter: dental implants, periodontitis, prognosis