Expectations and satisfaction of the total mandibular edentulum patient in the clinical area of dental implants of Santa Maria University
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.54139/odousuc.v23i1.417Keywords:
dentures, dental implants, edentulous arch, patient satisfactionAbstract
Over time, different alternatives have been proposed to solve the problem of edentulism, both in conventional rehabilitation and in that associated with implants, an object of restoring function, phonation and aesthetics; however, it is uncommon to inquire about what the patient aspires to obtain once the rehabilitation therapy is completed. The objective of the research was to analyze the expectations and satisfaction of the total mandibular edentulous patient. This is a qualitative-quantitative study in case study mode, for which 10 informants were selected candidates for hybrid screwed implantoretend implant prosthesis (PHISA) and 10 removable mucosupported implantoretend prostheses (SIMR), who were interviewed before and after the respective therapeutic intervention. The results showed similar aesthetic satisfaction in both groups and greater functional satisfaction in the SIMR group. It is concluded that total mandibular edentulous patients rehabilitated with SIMR perceive appropriate satisfaction, in line with their aspirations before starting implant treatment. Hence, the obligation of the treating clinician to explore the patient's expectations during therapeutic planning, in order to make clinical decisions that help provide the greatest possible satisfaction and a better quality of life
Downloads
References
Broabdent HB. A new X-ray technique and its application to orthodontia. Angle Orthod. 1931;1(2).
Tsorovas G, Linder-Aronson Karsten A. A comparison of hand-tracing and cephalometric analysis computer programs with and without advanced features - Accuracy and time demands. Eur J Orthod. 2010;32(6):721-8.
Trpkova B, Major P, Prasad N, Nebbe B. Cephalometric landmarks identification and reproducibility: a meta analysis. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 1997;112(2):165–70.
Kamoen A, Dermaut L, Verbeeck R. The clinical significance of error measurement in the interpretation of treatment results. Eur J Orthod. 2001;23:569–78.
Sayinsu K, Isik F, Trakyali G, Arun T. An evaluation of the errors in cephalometric measurements on scanned cephalometric images and conventional tracings. Eur J Orthod. 2007;29(1):105–8.
Kim H. Statistical notes for clinical researchers: Evaluation of measurement error 2: Dahlberg’ s error, Bland-Altman method and Kappa coefficient. Restor Dent Endod. 2013;182–5.
Houston WJB. The analysis of errors in orthodontic measurements. Am J Orthod. 1983;83(5):382–90.
Bourriau J, Bidange G, Foucart J. Les erreurs de mesure en céphalométrie 2D. L’Orthodontie Française. 2012;83:23–36.
Lindner C, Wang CW, Huang CT, Li CH, Chang SW, Cootes TF. Fully Automatic System for Accurate Localisation and Analysis of Cephalometric Landmarks in Lateral Cephalograms. Sci Rep [Internet]. 2016;6(May):1–10. Available from: http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/srep33581
Durão AR, Pittayapat P, Rockenbach IB, Olszewski R, Ng S, Ferreira AP, et al. Validity of 2D lateral cephalometry in orthodontics: A systematic review. Prog Orthod. 2013;14(1).
Mahto RK, Kharbanda OP, Duggal R, Sardana HK. A comparison of cephalometric measurements obtained from two computerized cephalometric softwares with manual tracings. J Indian Orthod Soc. 2016;50(3):162–70.
Albarakati SF, Kula KS, Ghoneima AA. The reliability and reproducibility of cephalometric measurements: a comparison of conventional and digital methods. Dentomaxillofacial Radiol. 2012;41:11–7.
Leonardi R, Giordano D, Maiorana F, Spampinato C. Automatic cephalometric analysis: A systematic review. Angle Orthod. 2008;78(1):145–51.
Silveira HLD, Silveira HED, Dalla-Bona RR, Abdala DD, Bertoldi RF, von Wangenheim A. Software system for calibrating examiners in cephalometric point identification. Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop. 2009;135(3):400–5.
Sánchez E. Desarrollo de un software para trazados de radiografías cefaleas laterales en el estudio de la cefalometría para la Universidad José Antonio Páez. José Antonio Páez; 2018.
Zamora CE. Compendio de Cefalometría - Análisis Clínico y Práctico. Amolca; 2004. 456 p.
Ganna PS, Shetty SK, Yethadka MK, Ansari A. An Evaluation of the Errors in Cephalometric Measurements on Scanned Lateral Cephalometric Images using Computerized Cephalometric Program and Conventional Tracings. J Indian Orthod Soc. 2014;48(4):388–92.
Baumrind S, C. FR. The reliability of head film measurements. Am J Orthod. 1971;60(5):505–17.
Lim KF, Foong KW. Phosphor-stimulated computed cephalometry: reliability of landmark identification. Br J Orthod [Internet]. 1997 [cited 2020 Jul 12];24(4):301–8. Available from: https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1093/ortho/24.4.301
Guedes PDA, Érika J, Souza N De, Tuji FM. A comparative study of manual vs . computerized cephalometric analysis. Dent Press J Orthod. 2010;15(2):44–51.
M. Miloro A. M. Borba, O. Ribeiro-Junior MGN-H, Jungner M. Is there consistency in cephalometric landmark identification amongst oral and maxillofacial surgeons? Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2014;43(4):445–53.
Arponen H, Elf H, Eva M. Reliability of cranial base measurements on lateral skull radiographs. Orthod Craniofacial Res. 2008;201–10.
Tng TTH, Chan TCK, Hägg U, Cooke MS. Validity of cephalometric landmarks. An experimental study on human skulls. Eur J Orthod. 1994;16:110–20.
Durão APR, Morosolli A, Pittayapat P, Bolstad N, Ferreira AP, Jacobs R. Cephalometric landmark variability among orthodontists and dentomaxillofacial radiologists: A comparative study. Imaging Sci Dent. 2015;45(4):213–20.
Liu J, Chen Y, Cheng K. Accuracy of computerized automatic identification of cephalometric landmarks. Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop. 2000;118(5):535–40.
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2022 ODOUS
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.
