Revista de Odontologia da UNESP
https://revodontolunesp.com.br/article/588017a87f8c9d0a098b4834
Revista de Odontologia da UNESP
Original Article

Grau de Satisfação de Pacientes Portadores de Prótese Parcial Fixa

Patient's Satisfaction with Fixed Partial Denture

Pinelli, L.A.P.; Fais, L.M.G.; Marra, J.; Tavares Silva, R.H.B.; Guaglianoni, D.G.

Downloads: 4
Views: 1097

Resumo

O objetivo deste trabalho foi avaliar o grau de satisfação de pacientes portadores de próteses parciais fixas (PPFs) e os fatores mais influentes nessa avaliação. Elaborou-se um questionário abrangendo desde o histórico das próteses até fatores relacionados com a adaptação do paciente, o qual foi aplicado a pacientes com próteses fixas atendidos na Faculdade de Odontologia de Araraquara - UNESP. As questões foram escoreadas, tabuladas em Excel 2000 e submetidas ao teste de Qui-quadrado. Foram entrevistados 69 pacientes, 51 do sexo feminino e 18 do masculino, totalizando 118 PPFs com média de 4 elementos. A maioria das próteses tinha até 5 anos de uso (74,58%), havendo predominância de metalocerâmicas (71,19%); 89 próteses (75,42%) nunca haviam sido substituídas, e 65,52% das substituições tiveram motivos funcionais como razão. Cinco pacientes (7,25%) foram classificados como insatisfeitos, 14 (20,29%) parcialmente satisfeitos e 50 (72,46%) satisfeitos com suas próteses. Dentre os fatores analisados, apenas o tipo de material da prótese influenciou a satisfação (p = 0,022602). Fatores estéticos (36,81%) e mecânicos (29,12%) foram os mais citados como insatisfatórios. Concluiu-se que os pacientes estavam satisfeitos com o tratamento, sendo as metalocerâmicas consideradas as mais satisfatórias e que fatores estéticos e mecânicos foram os principais fatores que contribuíram para a não satisfação plena.

Palavras-chave

Satisfação do paciente, prótese parcial fixa, reabilitação bucal

Abstract

The aim of this paper was to evaluate the degree of patient’s satisfaction wearers fixed partial denture (FPDs) and the most influential factors in this evaluation. A questionnaire was elaborated including from the prostheses description to factors related with the patient’s adaptation, so it was applied to patients with fixed prosthodontics who was attended at Araraquara School of Dentistry – UNESP. The questions were scored, computed from tables at Excel 2000 and then analyzed with chi-square test. 69 patients answered the survey; 51 were women and 18 were men totaling 118 FPDs, an average 4 units. Most of the prostheses had up to 5 year old and the predominant material was metal-ceramic; 89 prostheses had never been substituted and 65.52% of the ones that were substituted the functional factors was the reason. Five patients (7.25%) were classified as dissatisfied, 14 (20.29%) partially satisfied and 50 (72.46%) satisfied with their prostheses. Among the factors analyzed only the material type influenced the patients’ satisfaction (p = 0.022602); aesthetic factors (36.81%) and mechanical factors (29.12%) were more mentioned as unsatisfactory Among the factors analyzed only the material type influenced the satisfaction); aesthetic factors and mechanical factors were the more mentioned as unsatisfactory. It was conclude that most of patients were satisfied with their prostheses and that metal-ceramic were the most satisfactory; aesthetic and mechanical factors are the main factors that didn’t contribute to the patient’s full satisfaction.

Keywords

Patient satisfaction, denture parcial fixed, mouth rehabilitation

References



1. Bonachela WCC, Costa C, Rossetti PHO, Freitas R. Avaliação do grau de satisfação de pacientes de prótese parcial fixa em função de achados clínicos e radiográficos. Rev Bras Odontol. 1999; 56: 153-9.

2. Abrams RA, Ayers CS, Vogt Petterson M. Quality assessment of dental restorations: a comparison by dentist and patients. Community Dent Oral Epidemiol. 1986; 14: 317-9.

3. Brewer A. Selection of denture teeth for esthetics and function. J Prosthet Dent. 1970; 23: 368-73.

4. Chamberlain BB, Razzoog ME, Robinson E. Quality of care: compared perceptions of patient and prosthodontist. J Prosthet Dent. 1984; 52: 744-6.

5. Conny DJ, Tedesco LA, Brewer JD, Albino JE. Changes of attitude in fixed prosthodontic patients. J Prosthet Dent. 1985; 53: 451-4.

6. Creugers NHJ, Dekanter RJ. Patients’ satisfaction in two long-term clinical studies on resin-bonded bridges. J Oral Rehabil. 2000; 27: 602-7.

7. Gerbert B, Bleecker T, Saub E. Dentist and the patients who love them: professional and patients views of dentistry. J Am Dent Assoc. 1994; 125: 264-72.

8. Glantz P-OJ, Nilner K, Jendrese MD, Sundberg H. Quality of fixed prosthodontics after 15 years. Acta Odontol Scand. 1993; 51: 247-52.

9. Goodacre CJ, Bernal G, Rungcharassaeng K. Clinical complications in fixed prosthodontics. J Prosthet Dent. 2003; 90: 31-41.

10. Hakestam U, Karlsson T, Soderfeldt B, Ryden O, Glantz PO. Does the quality of advanced prosthetic dentistry determine patient satisfaction? Acta Odontol Scand. 1997; 55: 365-71.

11. Hobkirk JA. Complete dentures. Oxford: John Wright;

1986. 117 p.

12. Karlsson S. A clinical evaluation of fixed bridges, 10 years following insertion. J Oral Rehabil. 1986; 13: 423-32.

13. Kay EJ. Patients needs – more than meets the eye. Br Dent J. 1993; 174: 212-4.

14. Lahti S, Tuutti H, Hausen H, Kaariainen R. Dentist and patient opinions about the ideal dentist and patient – developing a compact questionnaire. Community Dent Oral Epidemiol. 1992; 20: 229-34.

15. Lahti S, Tuutti H, Hausen H, Kaariainen R. Comparison of ideal and actual behavior of patient and dentist during dental treatment. Community Dent Oral Epidemiol. 1995; 23: 374-8.

16. Libby G, Arcuri MR, Lavelle WE, Hebl L. Longevity of fixed partial dentures. J Prosthet Dent. 1997; 78: 127-31.

17. Liddell A, Locker D. Dental visit satisfaction in a group of adults aged 50 years and over. J Behav Med. 1992; 15: 415-27.

18. Lindquist E, Karlsson S. Success rate and failures for fixed partial dentures after 20 years of service: part I. Int J Prosthodont. 1998; 11: 133-8.

19. Newsome PRH, Wright GH. A review of patient satisfaction: 2. Dental patient satisfaction: an appraisal of recent literature. Br Dent J. 1999; 186: 166-70.

20. Oliveira IR. Causas mais freqüentes que levaram os pacientes a reclamarem ao conselho regional de odontologia de São Paulo, em relação à prótese dentária: estudo longitudinal [Dissertação de Mestrado]. São Paulo: Faculdade de Odontologia da USP; 1999.

21. Rimmer SE, Mellor AC. Patients’ perceptions of esthetics and technical quality in crowns and fixed partial dentures. Quintessence Int. 1996; 27: 155-62. Erratum in: Quintessence Int. 1996; 27: 228.

22. Rosenoer LM, Sheimam A. Dental impacts on daily life and satisfaction with teeth in relation to dental status in adults. J Oral Rehabil. 1995; 22: 469-80.

23. Schwartz NL, Whitsett LD, Berry TG, Stewart JL. Unserviceable crowns and fixed partial dentures: lifespan and causes for loss of serviceability. J Am Dent Assoc. 1970; 81: 1395-401.

24. Selby A. Fixed prosthodontic failure. A review and discussion of important aspects. Aust Dent J. 1994; 39: 150-6.

25. Sondell K, Soderfeldt B, Palmqvist S. Dentist-patient communication and patient satisfaction in prosthetic dentistry. Int J Prosthodont. 2002; 15: 28-37.

26. Stege P, Handelman SL, Baric JM, Espeland M. Satisfaction of the older patient with dental care. Gerodontol. 1986; 2: 171-4.

27. Tjan AHL, Miller GD. Some esthetic factors in a smile. J Prosthet Dent. 1984; 51: 24-8.

28. Valderhaug J. A 15-year clinical evaluation of fixed prosthodontics. Acta Odontol Scand. 1991; 35-40.

29. Walton JN, Garner FM, Agar JR. A survey of crown and fixed partial denture failures: length of service and reasons for replacement. J Prosthet Dent. 1986; 56: 416-21
588017a87f8c9d0a098b4834 rou Articles
Links & Downloads

Rev. odontol. UNESP

Share this page
Page Sections