Patient‐reported effect in patients receiving implant or tooth‐supported fixed prosthesis
EB Øzhayat, K Gotfredsen - Journal of Oral Rehabilitation, 2020 - Wiley Online Library
Journal of Oral Rehabilitation, 2020•Wiley Online Library
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) …
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) …
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.
Wiley Online Library以上显示的是最相近的搜索结果。 查看全部搜索结果