Department of Dental Materials and Prosthodontics, School of Dentistry of Ribeirão Preto, University of São Paulo. Ribeirão Preto, SP, Brazil.
College of Dentistry, University National San Luis Gonzaga. Ica, Peru.
Braz Dent J. 2023 May-Jun;34(3):82-93. doi: 10.1590/0103-6440202305260.
The objective of this study was to observe patients' satisfaction with their in-service direct anterior dental restorations and to compare it with clinical evaluation using FDI (Federation Dental International) criteria. Patients scored their own anterior dental restorations regarding satisfaction (satisfactory /dissatisfactory). If dissatisfaction was mentioned, then, they would be interviewed about the complaint. In the same session, the dental restorations were clinically evaluated by two dentists using FDI criteria (1-5 score) concerning esthetic, functional, and biological domains. Descriptive statistics were used for frequencies of scores attributed by patients and clinicians. In order to compare patients' to clinicians' frequencies, the Chi-square test was applied (p ≤ 0.05). A total of 106 restorations were evaluated by patients and clinicians. Patients reported 52.8% of restorations satisfactory and 47.8% dissatisfactory. Overall, clinicians reported the same restorations as 82,3% satisfactory and 17,6% dissatisfactory. Patients' most frequent complaints referred to color, followed by anatomical form, fracture of material and retention, and approximal anatomical form. Comparing patients' satisfaction and dissatisfaction rates to clinicians' evaluation per criteria, there was no difference regarding esthetics. The frequency of dissatisfactory restorations by clinicians was significantly lower when functional and biological properties were compared with patients' opinions. Direct anterior dental restorations were more frequently reported as satisfactory by patients and clinicians, being the main complaints related to esthetic issues. When clinicians and patients' evaluations were compared, it was observed that the frequencies of satisfactory restoration by patients and clinicians were similar regarding esthetic properties, and significantly different regarding functional and biological properties.
本研究旨在观察患者对其在役直接前牙修复体的满意度,并将其与使用 FDI(国际牙科联合会)标准的临床评估进行比较。患者对自己的前牙修复体的满意度进行评分(满意/不满意)。如果提到不满意,那么会对投诉进行采访。在同一会议上,两名牙医使用 FDI 标准(1-5 分)对牙修复体的美观、功能和生物学领域进行临床评估。对患者和临床医生评分的频率使用描述性统计进行分析。为了比较患者和临床医生的频率,应用了卡方检验(p≤0.05)。共有 106 个修复体接受了患者和临床医生的评估。患者报告 52.8%的修复体满意,47.8%不满意。总体而言,临床医生报告相同的修复体 82.3%满意,17.6%不满意。患者最常见的抱怨是颜色,其次是解剖形态、材料断裂和保留、邻面解剖形态。将患者的满意度和不满意率与每个标准的临床医生评估进行比较,在美学方面没有差异。与患者的意见相比,临床医生评估中功能和生物学特性的不满意修复体频率明显较低。直接前牙修复体更频繁地被患者和临床医生报告为满意,主要抱怨与美学问题有关。当比较临床医生和患者的评估时,观察到患者和临床医生对美学特性的满意修复体频率相似,而对功能和生物学特性的满意修复体频率差异显著。