Measuring patient satisfaction with mandibular prostheses

Objectives: Previous research has shown that patients' evaluations of their prostheses correlate poorly with the clinicians' assessments, as well as w ith intraoral anatomic factors. It has been recommended that researchers co nduct more studies that use patient satisfaction as the primary outcome mea sure in treatment evaluation and that more attention be paid to understandi ng exactly what measures of patient satisfaction represent. In this study, the relationship between patients' ratings of general satisfaction and thei r perceptions of different aspects of mandibular prostheses is investigated . Methods: One hundred and twenty subjects applied to participate in a rand omized controlled clinical trial comparing two types of mandibular prosthes es: conventional dentures and implant prostheses. At baseline, they were as ked to rate on 100 mm visual analog scales (VAS) factors that edentulous pa tients indicated were important to them. These included comfort, ability to chew, stability, esthetics, ability to speak and ease of cleaning of their conventional dentures. Subjects were also asked to rate their general sati sfaction with their dentures. In addition, they selected the one quality of their denture that they considered to be most important. Results: Multiple regression methods revealed that gender, as well as patients' ratings of c omfort, stability, esthetics, ability to chew and ability to speak with the ir prostheses contributed significantly to general satisfaction (F<0.0001). Furthermore, 89% of the variation in ratings of general satisfaction was e xplained by these factors. In addition, patients who considered ability to chew as the most important factor associated with their dentures rated thei r general satisfaction significantly higher than the other subjects (P=0.00 03). Conclusion: Patient satisfaction with conventional dental prostheses i s highly dependent on gender, and the appearance and functionality of the a ppliance. The combined effect of these factors explained most of the variat ion in the satisfaction ratings.