How do patients perceive the benefit of reconstructive dentistry with regard to oral health‐related quality of life and patient satisfaction? A systematic review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Reconstructive dentistry encompasses an enormous range of treatment modalities from the restoration of single teeth to the reconstruction of the whole dentoalveolar complex in edentulous patients. Some treatment modalities have been assessed in terms of quality-of-life (QoL) outcomes and satisfaction OBJECTIVES: The aim of the present investigation was to search and review studies published between 1996 and 2006 in which the impact of the treatment was measured in terms of QoL outcome, ideally, oral health-related quality of life (OHRQoL). Patient satisfaction was also accepted as an outcome. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The primary search engine used was NICB PubMed based on MeSH headings. Hand searching of the cited references in the included papers identified a number of additional studies. The primary focus of the search was to link treatment to QoL outcomes. RESULTS: The majority of included studies involved the treatment of edentulous patients, particularly the mandible. The preponderance of the studies comparing conventional dentures (CDs) and implant-supported overdentures (IODs) were randomized-controlled trials (N = 18). There was compelling evidence that patients were more satisfied with IODs than CDs. There was strong evidence that OHRQoL can be significantly improved using IODs. Evidence suggesting that one retention system is superior to another needs further clarification. Although high satisfaction ratings have been reported for maxillary implant prostheses, the overall ratings given to the maxillary implant prostheses were not significantly greater than for CDs. There was only sparce information regarding QoL or satisfaction outcomes for the majority of other forms of reconstructive dentistry. CONCLUSION: Apart from the restoration of the edentulous mandible with IODs or CD, where there is an accumulating body of evidence on the effect of treatment choice, there are many procedures for which there are little or no such data at all. As yet, the entire range of reconstructive treatment has witnessed insufficient investigations relating treatment to its effect on QoL or satisfaction. This is an area that needs to be expanded as a way of quantifying the effect of treatment choices.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.008 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.007 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".