Impacto do uso de fita adesiva no grau de satisfação de pacientes institucionalizados e usuários de próteses totais convencionais
Impact of the use of adhesive strip over the satisfaction degree of institutionalized patients and wearers of conventional complete denture
Spenciere, Marine Caiado Rocha Lima; Zavanelli, Adriana Cristina; Carvalho Júnior, Hugo de; Zavanelli, Ricardo Alexandre
Rev. odontol. UNESP, vol.38, n6, p.335-340, 2009
Abstract
Objetivo: Avaliar o impacto do uso de adesivos em formato de fita no grau de satisfação de pacientes institucionalizados e usuários de prótese total convencional. Material e métodos: Foram selecionados 29 pacientes portadores de próteses totais convencionais duplas e, após exame clínico, aplicou-se um questionário (adaptado e baseado nos índices "Oral Health Impact Profile" e "Oral Health Related Quality of Life") para avaliar questões epidemiológicas (gênero e idade), grau de satisfação acerca de retenção, desempenho mastigatório e paladar da prótese, e anseio por tratamento com implantes. Em seguida, os pacientes receberam orientações para o uso de adesivos (Corega Fita Adesiva, GlaxoSmithKline, Rio de Janeiro, Brasil), sendo três na base protética maxilar e dois na base protética mandibular, durante um período de 30 dias. Decorrido esse período, o questionário foi reaplicado, acrescentando-se questões relativas ao desempenho do adesivo, para comparação antes e após o uso da fita adesiva em termos de percentagem. Resultados: Os dados obtidos mostraram 65,5% das respostas afirmando que a adesividade foi mantida entre 6 e 12 horas, que os adesivos mostraram-se ser de fácil remoção (68,9%), além de não alterarem o paladar (89,6%). Houve diminuição pelo anseio de tratamento com implantes, passando de 75,8 para 37,9%, depois do uso do adesivo. Conclusão: Os resultados evidenciaram um impacto positivo no grau de satisfação dos respondentes após o uso da fita adesiva, mostrando melhora da retenção e do desempenho mastigatório, com exceção de dois grupos de alimentos.
Keywords
Prótese dentária, prótese total, adesivos, satisfação
Resumo
Objective: Evaluate the impact of the use of strip adhesive over the satisfaction degree of institutionalized patients and wearers of complete dentures. Material and methods: Twenty-nine institutionalized patients wearers of complete denture were selected to this study and after a clinical exam, a questionnaire (adjusted and based upon the index of Oral Health Impact Profile and Oral Health-Related Quality of Life, OHIP and OHQOL) was applied to evaluate issues related to epidemiological conditions (gender and age), satisfaction degree, chewing performance, taste and notion of implant treatment. Following this part, the patients received instruction to use the strips adhesives (Corega Fita Adesiva, Glaxo-Smith-Kline, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil), considering three in maxillary prosthesis and two in the lower prosthesis during a period of 30 days. After this period, all the patients were recall and the questionnaire was reapplied; add some adhesive performance questions, to compare the results before and after the adhesive use in terms of percentage. Results: The results shows 65.5% of the answers stating adhesive maintenance between 6 - 12 hours, easy removal (68.9%), and without change the taste (89.6%). The notion for implant treatment was decreased changing from 75.8 to 37.9% after the adhesive use. Conclusion: The results enhanced a positive impact over satisfaction degree of the respondents after the strip adhesive use, show showing improvement of the retention and chewing performance, except for two types of food.
Palavras-chave
Dental prosthesis, complete denture, adhesives, satisfaction.
References
1. Waldman HB, Perlman SP, Xu L. Should the teaching of full denture prosthetics be maintained in schools of dentistry? J Dent Educ. 2007;71: 463-6.
2. Douglass CW, Shih A, Ostry L. Will there be a need for complete dentures in the United States in 2020? J Prosthet Dent. 2002;87:5-8.
3. Douglass CW, Watson AJ. Future needs for fixed and removable partial dentures in the United States. J Prosthet Dent. 2002;87:9-14.
4. Felton DA. Edentulism and comorbid factors. J Prosthodont. 2009;18:88-96.
5. Ferencz JL, Felton DA. Facing the future of edentulism. J Prosthodont. 2009;18:86-7.
6. Weintraub JA, Burt BA. Oral health status in the United States: tooth loss and edentulism. J Dent Educ. 1985;49:368-78.
7. Steele JG, Sanders AE, Slade GD, Allen PF, Lahti S, Nuttall N, et al. How do age and tooth loss affect oral health impacts and quality of life? A study comparing two national samples. Community Dent Oral Epidemiol. 2004;32:107-14.
8. Allen PF, Locker D. A modified short version of the oral health impact profile for assessing health-related quality of life in edentulous adults. Int J Prosthodont. 2002;15:446-50.
9. Locker D. Measuring oral health: a conceptual framework. Community Dent Health. 1988;5:3-18.
10. Locker D, Allen PF. Developing short-form measures of oral health-related quality of life. J Public Health Dent. 2002;62:13-20.
11. Locker D, Jokovic A. Using subjective oral health status indicators to screen for dental care needs in older adults. Community Dent Oral Epidemiol. 1996;24:398-402.
12. Slade GD, Spencer AJ. Development and evaluation of the Oral Health Impact Profile. Community Dent Health. 1994;11:3-11.
13. Allen PF, McMillan AS. The impact of tooth loss in a denture wearing population: an assessment using the Oral Health Impact Profile. Community Dent Health. 1999;16:176-80.
14. Melas F, Marcenes W, Wright PS. Oral health impact on daily performance in patients with implantstabilized overdentures and patients with conventional complete dentures. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2001;16:700-12.
15. Awad MA, Feine JS. Measuring patient satisfaction with mandibular prostheses. Community Dent Oral Epidemiol. 1998;26:400-5.
16. Heydecke G, Locker D, Awad MA, Lund JP, Feine JS. Oral and general health-related quality of life with conventional and implant dentures. Community Dent Oral Epidemiol. 2003;31:161-8.
17. Atwood DA. Reduction of residual ridges: a major oral disease entity. J Prosthet Dent. 1971;26:266-79.
18. Tallgren A. The continuing reduction of the residual alveolar ridges in complete denture wearers: a mixedlongitudinal study covering 25 years. J Prosthet Dent. 1972;27:120-32.
19. Adisman IK. The use of denture adhesives as an aid to denture treatment. J Prosthet Dent. 1989;62:711-5.
20. Coates AJ. Denture adhesives: a review. Aust Prosthodont J. 1995;9:27-31.
21. Coates AJ. Usage of denture adhesives. J Dent. 2000;28:137-40.
22. Folse GJ. Denture adhesives: when, why, and how. Dent Today. 2004;23:70-1.
23. Grasso J. Effect of denture adhesive on retention of the mandibular and maxillary dentures during function. J Clin Dent. 2000;11:98-103.
24. Rendell JK. The effect of denture adhesive on mandibular movement during chewing. J Am Dent Assoc. 2000;131:981-6.
25. Sato Y, Kaiba Y, Hayakawa I. Evaluation of denture retention and ease of removal from oral mucosa on a new gel-type denture adhesive. Nihon Hotetsu Shika Gakkai Zasshi. 2008;52:175-82.
26. Ozcan M. The attitude of complete denture wearers towards denture adhesives in Istanbul. J Oral Rehabil. 2004;31:131-4.
27. Kulak Y, Ozcan M, Arikan A. Subjective assessment by patients of the efficiency of two denture adhesive pastes. J Prosthodont. 2005;14:248-52.
Facebook
Google+
Twitter
LinkedIn
Mendeley
StumbleUpon
CiteULike
Reddit
Email