Asian Journal Of Modern And Ayurvedic Medical Science (ISSN 2279-0772)
Vol.2,No.1, January 2013.[
©
The Author 2013]
Published By Mpasvo Letter No.V-34564,Reg.533/2007-2008,All Rights Reserved.For Permissions E-Mail : maneeshashukla76@rediffmail.com &
chiefeditor_ajmams@yahoo.in
.
Original Research Article
Assessment of the relation between patient attitude and patient satisfaction with Removable partial dentures” (Original Research article)
Dr. Rajul Vivek 1 Dr. Ankita Singh 2
Declaration
T
he Declaration of the authors for publication of Research Paper in
Asian Journal of Modern and Ayurvedic Medical Science (ISSN 2279-0772)
Dr. Rajul Vivek 1 Dr. Ankita Singh 2
the authors of the research paper entitled
Assessment of the relation between patient attitude and patient satisfaction with Removable partial dentures” (Original Research article)
declare that , We
take the responsibility of the content and material of our paper as We ourself have written it and also have read the manuscript of our paper carefully. Also, We hereby give our consent to publish our paper in ajmams , This research paper is our original work and no part of it or it’s similar version is published or has been sent for publication anywhere else.We authorise the Editorial Board of the Journal to modify and edit the manuscript. We also give our consent to the publisher of ajmams to own the copyright of our research paper.
Received November 14 , 2012 ; Accepted December 15, 2012 , Published January 1 , 2013
..............................................................................................................................................
Abstract
The study was done to evaluate the factors which influence the patients satisfaction with removable partial denture and was conducted at Department of Prosthodontics, Faculty of Dental sciences IMS, BHU from November 2011 to November 2012. Sixty six patients of both genders were included. Before providing partial dentures, patient’s demographics were recorded along with oral hygiene. One week after the insertion of new dentures the patients were recalled to grade their dentures. They first graded their dentures in total and then they graded separately as denture retention, stability, aesthetics, speech, and pain, communication with people, mastication and comfort. More than 50% of the patients were comfortable with their dentures. In terms of retention, stability, speech, taste, chewing and communication 50 to 81 % patients showed their satisfaction. Satisfaction rate for appearance was recorded 10 % to 50%. While 75 % subjects remained painless. 68% of subjects did not feel denture as a foreign body.
Keywords
– Removable Partial Denture, Retention, Satisfaction
................................................................................................................................................................
Introduction
Loss of teeth is one of the common problems seen in dental clinics.1 The main causes of the tooth loss may be either dental caries or periodontal disease.2 Dental caries is considered the major cause of tooth loss in younger adult, while periodontal disease which cause tooth loss over age 40 years.3 The loss of teeth adversely effect in Oral Health Related Quality of Life by affecting the speech, mastication, esthetics, teeth shifting, bone loss and bite problems.4 Missing teeth are replaced by fixed partial denture (FPD), implant or removable partial denture (RPD) to restore function and aesthetics.5,6
Fixed partial denture improve esthetics and function but it is very destructive for tooth structure and cause gingival inflammation due to sub gingival margin of the abutments teeth, which may lead to problem with the endodontic status of the abutment tooth.7,8 Implant restoration improve esthetics and function and offers advantages over conventional bridges, but implant failure have been reported.8,9 After implant failure, some patients opt for fixed partial denture or well constructed removable partial denture.10,11,12 Moreover the cost of the implant is also major factor for the patients not to accept implant as feasible mode of management. Removable partial denture is useful in large partially edentulous span case which offers function and esthetics, RPD considered retentive prosthesis due to presence of clasps which have the ability to resist denture dislodgement.13,14, 15 Because of the higher cost of the treatment and lack of insurance for various reasons, partial dentures continue to be widely used as a treatment of choice for the replacement of missing teeth.16
The majority of patients are satisfied with their removable partial dentures (RPD).17 However, even if RPDs are constructed according to all accepted criteria, some patients will still be dissatisfied. Satisfaction with RPDs seems to have a multi causal character.18 In addition to the factors directly related to the functioning of dentures; patient-related factors influence the final result. Satisfaction with RPDs relates in some patients primarily to comfort and the ability to masticate, 19 but esthetics and retention also seem to be important. 20 Besides the clinician’s skill and the quality of dentures, the following factors related to the patient are very important to final satisfaction with RPDs: personality, attitude toward the dentures, prior RPD experience, and motivation for wearing a denture.21, 22
The patient’s expectations of the dentures are related to satisfaction, which makes later adjustment to the dentures easier, regardless of the oral conditions.23
Patients attitude toward dentures is the most important factor for patient acceptance to dentures24, 25, 26 and improve later adjustment of new denture. It is generally noted that patients are more satisfied with their partial denture when their age is below 60 years.5 A study reported that patients’ dissatisfaction with removable partial denture associated with biomechanical factors of RPDs including retention, stability and ability to chewing and speaking, as well as, some of main disadvantages of removable partial dentures (e.g. risk to local damage of the remaining teeth, plaque accumulation, etc.) have a great impact on the patient satisfaction with their prosthesis.
Knowledge about patient satisfaction with the treatment outcomes of their RPDs would be helpful to both clinicians and patients as they decide on prosthodontic treatment.
The purpose of present study was to evaluate the factors which influence the patients satisfaction with removable partial denture.
Materials and Method
This descriptive study was conducted in Out Patient Department of Prosthodontic at Faculty of Dental Sciences, IMS, BHU, Varanasi from October 2011 to October 2012. Eighty partially edentulous patients of both genders between the ages of 20-55 years that required removable partial denture were selected through non probability purposive sampling technique. The patients with tempromandibular dysfunction syndrome and poor oral health were not considered suitable. A written informed consent was taken from all participants.
A questionnaire divided into two parts was devised for the purposes of the study, and it was completed by the patients.
In the first part, patient was required to answer questions on gender, age, marital status, oral hygiene and the ordinal number of dentures. In the second part the patients were recalled after one week of insertion of dentures and asked to grade partial dentures, according to the level of their satisfaction ranging from strong dissatisfaction to strong satisfaction.
The term patient satisfaction was used in this manuscript for the level of satisfaction of denture wearer to the prosthesis (partial denture) provided to them, in terms of retention, stability, aesthetics, speech, pain, communication (with people), mastication and comfort.
Result-
There are many factors dependent on the patient, as well as on the clinician, that could have an influence on patients’ satisfaction with their RPDs. The great majority of the patients were very satisfied with the treatment outcome.
Status of oral hygiene, general satisfaction, frequency of retention and stability is visible in Table 1, while Table 2 shows the effects on speech, chewing, taste, comfort and appearance. Frequency of pain, foreign body feeling, ease in communication and satisfaction about cosmetics is shown in Table 3.
TABLE 1: STATUS OF ORAL HYGIENE, GENERAL SATISFACTION, FREQUENCY OF RETENTION AND STABILITY (n = 80)
Condition
|
Frequency
|
Percentage
|
ORAL HYGIENE
Good
Poor
|
72
08
|
80
10
|
GENERAL SATISFACTION
Strongly Dissatisfied
Dissatisfied
Not sure
Satisfied
Strongly Satisfied
|
08
05
03
20
40
|
10
6.2
3.7
25
50
|
RETENTION
Strongly Dissatisfied
Dissatisfied
Not sure
Satisfied
Strongly Satisfied
|
03
06
08
17
50
|
3.7
7.5
10
21.2
62.5
|
STABILITY
Strongly Dissatisfied
Dissatisfied
Not sure
Satisfied
Strongly Satisfied
|
04
03
04
50
19
|
5
3.7
5
62.5
23.8
|
TABLE 2: EFFECT ON SPEECH, CHEWING, TASTE, COMFORT AND APPEARANCE (n = 80)
Condition
|
Frequency
|
Percentage
|
SPEECH
Strongly Dissatisfied
Dissatisfied
Satisfied
Strongly Satisfied
|
02
05
08
65
|
2.5
6.2
10
81.3
|
CHEWING
Strongly Dissatisfied
Dissatisfied
Not sure
Satisfied
Strongly Satisfied
|
03
04
01
06
60
|
3.8
5
1.2
7.5
75
|
COMFORT
Strongly Dissatisfied
Dissatisfied
Not sure
Satisfied
Strongly Satisfied
|
07
10
3
20
40
|
8.8
12.5
3.8
25
50
|
APPEARANCE
Dissatisfied
Not sure
Satisfied
Strongly Satisfied
|
11
14
15
40
|
13.8
17.5
18.8
50
|
TABLE 3: FREQUENCY OF PAIN, FOREIGN BODY, COMMUNICATION (n = 80)
Condition
|
Frequency
|
Percentage
|
PAIN
Dissatisfied
Not sure
Satisfied
Strongly Satisfied
|
05
05
10
60
|
6.2
6.2
12.5
75
|
FOREIGN BODY
Strongly Dissatisfied
Dissatisfied
Not sure
Satisfied
Strongly Satisfied
|
02
03
15
55
05
|
2.5
3.8
18.8
68.8
6.3
|
COMMUNICATION
Strongly Dissatisfied
Dissatisfied
Not sure
Satisfied
Strongly Satisfied
|
10
10
04
54
2
|
12.5
12.5
5
67.5
2.5
|
Discussion
Different factors may influence patient satisfaction with their dentures. Apart from psychological factors, other factors include quality of the denture bearing area, quality of the oral mucosa, influence of the surrounding muscles on denture flanges, viscosity of saliva, patient’s age and ability to get used to a denture, status of abutments, status of other teeth in the mouth, relation between horizontal and vertical dimension of occlusion, hygiene habits, diet, position of patient’s teeth in the mouth etc. The influence of the patient’s age, gender, oral hygiene status, marital status etc on the patient’s satisfaction has been examined in several studies.5,26 Results of this study are in agreement with similar studies on the patient’s satisfaction with removable partial denture.5,21 With regard to the general satisfaction and the Comfort of patients, thirty-three (55%) of patients were strongly satisfied, compared to Sharafat’sresult.28 In terms of retention and stability fifty (62.5) of patients of this study were strongly satisfied with the retention and stability of the present study when compared with sharafat’s result 86.2%.28 As for speech, eating with dentures: Sixty five (81.3%.), Sixty (75.0%), were strongly satisfied with these items, while in sharafat’s28 result 80.6% of patients were satisfied during speech, 58.2% were satisfied in chewing. For appearance, fourty (50.0%) of patients of the present study were strongly satisfied, while in another result28 65.5% were satisfied with appearance. About the satisfaction with the denture as a foreign body, fifty five (68.8%) of patients were satisfied and three (5.0%) strongly satisfied, while in another study28 71.5% felt denture as a part of themselves. Fifty four (67.5 %) of patients had no communication problem, compared to other study28 62.6% found it easy to communicate with others.
Conclusion
More than fifty percent patients were strongly satisfied with their dentures. There was no significant difference for the assessed variables (general satisfaction, aesthetics, mastication, comfort, retention etc.) between patients of different age and gender but there was significant difference between the oral hygiene of patients and their satisfaction with removable dentures. As regards quality of dentures (bio-mechanically and esthetically), highest percentage of patients were satisfied with the appearance, retention and stability. They showed positive attitude toward removable partial denture.
Reference –
1.Radzi Z, Yahya NA, Zamzam N, Spencer RJ. Missing tooth: A new technique to maintain the space for prosthetic replacement during orthodontic treatment. Annal Dent Univ Malaya. 2004; 11: 1-6.
2.Lin HC, Corbet EF, Lo EC, Zhang HG. Tooth loss, occluding pairs, and prosthetic status of Chinese adults. J. Dent. Res. 2001; 80(5): 1491-95.
3 Hayashi N, Tamagawa H, Tanaka M, Hanioka T, Maruyama S, Takeshita T et al. Association of tooth loss with psychosocial factors in male Japanese employees. J Occup Health. 2001; 43: 351-55.
4 Leung KCM, Pow EHN. Oral rehabilitation with removable partial denture in advanced tooth loss situations. Hong Kong dent J. 2009; 6: 39-45.
5 Knezovic-Zlataric D, Celebic A, Valentic-Perozovic M, Jerolimov V, Celic R, Filipovic-Zore I et al. Patients’ satisfaction with partial denture therapy. Acta Stomat Croat. 2000; 34: 373-78.
6 Granstrom G. Placement of dental implants in irradiated bone: the case for using hyperbaric oxygen. J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2006; 64(5): 812-18.
7 Hebel K, Gajjar R, Hofstede T. Single-tooth replacement: bridge vs. implant-supported restoration. J Can Dent Assoc. 2000; 66(8): 435-38.
8 Hemmings K, Harrington Z. Replacement of missing teeth with fixed prostheses. Dent Update. 2004; 31(3): 137-41.
9 Mijiritsky E. Implants in conjunction with removable partial dentures: a literature review. Implant Dent. 2007; 16(2): 146-54.
10 Levin L. Dealing with dental implant failures. J Appl Oral Sci. 2008; 16(3): 171-75.
11 Wu PB, Yung WC. Factors contributing to implant failure. Hong Kong Dent Journal. 2005; 2: 12-18.
12 Mijiritsky E, Karas S. Removable partial denture design involving teeth and implants as an alternative to unsuccessful fixed implant therapy: a case report. Implant Dent. 2004; 13(3): 218-22.
13 Zarb GA. The replacement of missing teeth. Can Fam Physician. 1988; 34: 1435-40.
14 Fayyaz M, Ghani F. Appropriateness of knowledge and practice of dentist relating to using clasps in removable partial dentures. J Ayub Med Coll Abbottabad. 2008; 20(1): 52-55.
15 Khan SB. Aesthetic clasp design for removable partial dentures: A literature review. SADJ. 2005; 60(5): 190-94.
16 Inukai M, Baba K, John MT, Igarashi Y. Does removable partial denture quality affect individuals’ oral health? J Dent Res. 2008; 87(8): 736-39.
17. Watson CL, Reeve PE, Barnes E, Lane AE, Bates JF. The role of personality in the management of partial dentures. J Oral Rehabil 1986;13:83–91.
18.Van Waas M, Meeuwissen J, Meeuwissen R, Käyser A, Kalk W, van’t Hof M. Relationship between wearing a removable partial denture and satisfaction in the elderly. Community Dent Oral Epidemiol 1994;22:315–318.
19. Reifel NM, Rana H, Marcus M. Consumer satisfaction. Adv Dent Res 1997;11:281–290.
20.Hoad-Reddick G, Grant AA. Prosthetic status: The formation of a schedule. J Prosthet Dent 1988;59:105–110.
21.Frank RP, Brudvik JS, Leroux B, Milgrom P, Hawkins N. Relationship between the standards of removable partial denture construction, clinical acceptability, and patient satisfaction. J Prosthet Dent 2000;83:521–527.
22. Frank RP, Milgrom P, Leroux BG, Hawkins NR. Treatment outcomes with mandibular removable partial dentures: A population based study of patient satisfaction. J Prosthet Dent 1998;80:36–45.
23.
Merelie DL, Heyman B. Dental needs of the elderly in residential
care in Newcastle-upon-Tyne and the role of formal carers.
Community Dent Oral Epidemiol 1992;20:106–111.
24.
Al. Sharafat F. Assessment of the relation between patient
attitude and patient satisfaction with complete dentures. Pak.
Oral & Den. J. 2008; 28(2): 305-08.
25.Knezovic-Zlataric D, Celebic A, Valentic-Perozovic M, Panduric J, Celic R, Poljak-Guberina R. The influence of kennedy’s classification, partial denture material and construction on patients’ satisfaction. Acta Stomat Croat. 2001; 35: 77-81.
26. Zlataric DK, Celebic A, Valentic-Peruzovic M, Celic R, Filipovic- Zore I, Bauci M. The satisfaction with the removable partial denture therapy in the Croatian adult population. Coll Antropol. 2000; 2: 485-94.
27. Lee HS. A comparison of patient satisfaction between implantsupported prostheses and removable partial dentures in the distal extension missing areas. J Oral and Maxillofac Imp. 2006; 10 (1): 16-30.
28.Al. Sharafat F. Assessment of the relation between patient attitude and patient satisfaction with complete dentures. Pak. Oral & Den. J. 2008; 28(2): 305-08.