We are using cookies to implement functions like login, shopping cart or language selection for this website and to create anonymized statistical reports of the usage. You will find more information in our privacy policy. By continuing to use our website, you agree to this. Yes, I agree
European Journal of Oral Implantology
Login:
username:

password:

Plattform:

Forgotten password?

Registration

Eur J Oral Implantol 9 (2016), Supplement 1     16. June 2016
Eur J Oral Implantol 9 (2016), Supplement 1  (16.06.2016)

Supplement, Page 45-57, PubMed:27314111


Patient information on treatment alternatives for missing single teeth - Systematic review
Edelmayer, Michael / Woletz, Katharina / Ulm, Christian / Zechner, Werner / Tepper, Gabor
Aim: This study systematically evaluates existing evidence-based literature covering the topic of patient information about different treatment alternatives for missing single teeth, in order to summarise current evidence.
Material and methods: Three scientific databases - Pubmed, OvidSP and Scopus - were searched for publications up to July 2015, relating to patient information on treatment options for missing single teeth. References of publications and the google scholar database were screened additionally leading to a total of 183 journal articles written in English. Following the selection criteria, 33 articles were included. Twenty-nine questionnaire- based publications were compared by descriptive analysis of six key parameters - awareness of treatment options, source of information, knowledge, attitude to treatment, preference of treatment option and reason for refusal.
Results: Included studies consisted of data from 23,702 responding participants and which were performed in 16 countries. Mean values and standard deviations revealed variations between and within countries. The level of awareness and attitude to treatment in most countries is acceptable. Insufficient knowledge as well as a high demand for knowledge was found. Clinicians are the most important source of information followed by media, family and friends. Dental Implants and FPDs were preferred and high costs would be the major reason for refusal.
Conclusion: Clinicians play an important role in improving awareness and knowledge of patients about treatment alternatives. Non-uniform study designs could lead to variations in results. This systematic review can be considered in further studies, in order to standardise methods using key parameters and a representative study population.

Keywords: dental implants, fixed partial dentures, orthodontic space closure, patient information, removable partial dentures