Abstract and keywords
Abstract (English):
Subject. There are methods for assessing dental and maxillary (including implant) prosthetics. Objectives. The goal is to create our own method for assessing the degree of satisfaction with the results of prosthetics, which will be compact, easy to use, perform calculations, while being objective, clear and conclusive. Methodology. Three well-known validated methods for assessing the results of dental prosthetics were analyzed: the Likert scale, Denture Satisfaction Questionnaire (DSQ) and Visual Analogue Scale (Wolfart S. e.a., 2006). The above validated scales-questionnaires were the basis for creating our own method for assessing the degree of satisfaction with the results of prosthetics. The developed scale was clinically tested. The study involved 46 people (9 men; 27 women) aged 59 to 76 years (mean age 68.2 ± 5.1 years). Results. An initial successful validation of the method was carried out. With rare exceptions, after the briefing, all the subjects quickly enough (5–7 minutes) coped with filling out the scale-questionnaire without experiencing any apparent difficulties. Parallel use in the same patients of the questionnaire by Wolfart S. (2006) and Mericske-Stern R. et al. (2009) demonstrated a significant general focus and an average degree of closeness of these questionnaires with the author's method (respectively: ; ). Conclusions: 1. A method for assessing patient satisfaction with the results of dental prosthetics has been developed. 2. A distinctive feature of the questionnaire is the scale's compactness, relative ease of use and calculations. 3. The proposed method can be used in a clinical setting, with an expert assessment of the quality of prosthetics, as well as in the work of conflict expert commissions.

scale, questionnaire, prosthetics, questioning, satisfaction, assessment

1. Volkovoy O.A. Klinicheskie i sociologicheskie podhody k obosnovaniyu implantacionnogo zubnogo protezirovaniya v usloviyah sochetaniya neblagopriyatnyh faktorov : dis. ... k.m.n. Tver', 2018:164. [O.A. Volkovoy. Clinical and sociological approaches to the justification of implantation dental prosthetics in conditions of a combination of unfavorable factors: dis. ... c.m.s. Tver, 2018:164. (In Russ.)].

2. Mishnev M.L., Trezubov V.N., Rozov R.A., O.N. Tkacheva i dr. Komp'yuternaya programma skriningovoy ocenki «TREMISh» dlya planirovaniya podgotovki polosti rta pozhilyh pacientov k implantacionnomu protezirovaniyu. Svidetel'stvo RosPatenta o gos. registracii programmy dlya EVM №2022666160 ot 25 avgusta 2022 g. [M.L. Mishnev, V.N. Trezubov, R.A. Rozov, Tkacheva O.N. et al. Computer program for screening assessment "TREMISH" for planning the preparation of the oral cavity of elderly patients for implant prosthetics. Certificate of RosPatent on the state. registration of the computer program No. 2022666160 dated August 25, 2022. (In Russ.)].

3. Trezubov V.N., Volkovoy O.A. Komp'yuternaya programma ekspertnoy ocenki kachestva zubnogo implantacionnogo protezirovaniya «TREVOL». Svidetel'stvo RosPatenta o gos. registracii novoy komp'yuternoy programmy №2017663483 ot 05.12.2017g. [V.N. Trezubov, O.A. Volkova. Computer program for expert assessment of the quality of dental implant prosthetics "TREVOL". Certificate of RosPatent on the state. registration of a new computer program No. 2017663483 dated 05.12.2017. (In Russ.)].

4. Trezubov V.N., Simonenko A.A., Rozov R.A. Programma ocenki kachestva implantacionnogo lecheniya «TRESIM». Svid. o gos. registracii programmy dlya EVM №2019661193 ot 21.08.2019 g. [V.N. Trezubov, A.A. Simonenko, R.A. Rozov et al. The program for assessing the quality of implantation treatment "TRESIM". Certificate. about Mrs. registration of the computer program No. 2019661193 dated 08/21/2019. (In Russ.)].

5. Aefadda S., Hard N.A., David L. Five-year clinical results of immediately loaded dental implants using mandibular overdentures // Int. J.Prosthodont. – 2009;22:368-373. PMID: 19639074.

6. Allen P., McMillan A. A longitudinal study of quality of life outcomes in older adults requesting implant prostheses and complete removable dentures // Clin. Oral Implants Res. – 2003;14:173-179. doi: 10.1034/j.1600-0501.2003.140206.x

7. Allen P. Assessment of oral health related quality of life // Health Qual. Life Outcomes. – 2003;1:40.

8. Attard N., Diacono M. Early loading of fixture original implants with mandibular overdentures: a preliminary report on a prospective study // Int. J.Prosthodont. – 2010;23:507-512. PMID: 21209984

9. Bassi F., Carr A., Ting-Ling Chang, Estafarous E. et al. Functional outcomes for clinical evaluation of implant restoration // Int. J.Prosthodont. – 2013;26(5):411-418. doi: 10.11607/ijp.3404

10. Bassi F., Carr A., Ting Ling Chang et al. Psychologic outcomes in implant prosthodontics // Int. J. Prosthodont. – 2013;26(5):429-434. doi: 10.11607/ijp.3403

11. Esposito M., Crusovin M., Wothington H. Agreement of quantitative subjective evaluation of esthetic changes in implant dentistry by patients and practioners // Int. J. Oral. Maxillofac.Implants. – 2009;24:309-315. PMID: 19492647

12. Feine J., Maskawi K., de Grandinont P. et al. Within-subject comparisons of implant-supported mandibular prostheses: evaluation of masticatory function // J. Dent. Res. – 1994;73:1646-1656. doi: 10.1177/00220345940730101001

13. Kimoto S., Kimoto K., Murakami H. et al. Effect of an acrylic resin-based resilient liner applied to mandibular complete dentures on satisfaction ratings among edentulous patients // Int. J.Prosthodont. – 2014;27(6):561-566. doi: 10.11607/ijp.3935

14. Knezovič-Zlatarič D., Čelebič A. Factors related to patients’ general satisfaction with removable partial dentures: a stepwise multiple regression analysis // Int. J. Prosphodont. – 2008;21(1):86-88. PMID: 18350954

15. Mericske-Stern R., Probst D., Fahrländer F., Schellenberg M. Within-subject comparison of two regid bar designs connecting two interforaminal implants: patients’ satisfaction and prosthetic results // Clin. Implant. Dent. Relat Res. – 2009;11:.228-237. doi: 10.1111/j.1708-8208.2008.00109.x

16. Pjetursson B., Bragger U., Lang N., Zwahlen M. Comparison of survival and complication rates of tooth-supported fixed dental prostheses (FPDs) and implant-supported FPDs and single crowns (SCs) // Clin. Oral Implants Res. – 2007;18(3):97-113. doi: 10.1111/j.1600-0501.2007.01439.x

17. Pjetursson B. et al. Patient satisfaction following implant therapy. A 10-year prospective study // Clin. Oral Implants Res. – 2005;16(2):185-193. doi: 10.1111/j.1600-0501.2004.01094.x

18. Santucci D., Camilleri L., Kobayashi Y., Attard N. Development of a Maltese version of oral health-associated questionnaires: OHIP-14, GOHAI, and Denture-Satisfaction Questionnaire // Int. J. Prosthodont. – 2014;27(1):44-49. doi: 10.11607/ijp.3603

19. Santucci D., Attard N. The Oral Health-related quality of life in state institutionalized older adults in Malta // Int. J. Prosthodont. – 2015;28:402-411. doi: 10.11607/ijp.4185

20. Slade G. Derivation and validation of a short-form oral health impact profile // Community Dent. Oral Epidemiol. – 1997;25:284-290. doi: 10.1111/j.1600-0528.1997.tb00941.x

21. Slade G., Spencer A. Development and evaluation of the Oral Health Impact Profile // Community Dent. Health. – 1994;11:3-11. PMID: 8193981.

22. Wegdan Muhammed El-Sayed, Muhammed Ahmed Gd., Ahmed Muhammed Medra. Prosthodontic management of maxilloectomy patients with dental implants in residual zygomatic bone: a preliminary report // Int. J.Prosthodont. – 2014;27(6):534-540. doi: 10.11607/ijp.3598

23. Wolfart S., Quass A., Freitag S., Kropp P. et al. General well-being as an important co-factor of self-assessment of dental appearance // Int. J. Prosthodont. – 2006;19:449-454. PMID: 17323722.

24. YunZou, De Song Zhan, HaO Chen. Personal factors determining patient satisfaction with all-ceramic crown treatment for single anterior teeth // Int. J.Prosthodont. – 2016;29(5):482-483. doi: 10.11607/ijp.4675

Login or Create
* Forgot password?