The shortened dental arch — an assessment of patients' dental health state utility values
Identifieur interne : 003E33 ( Istex/Corpus ); précédent : 003E32; suivant : 003E34The shortened dental arch — an assessment of patients' dental health state utility values
Auteurs : Mohammad Zakaria Nassani ; Hugh Devlin ; J Fraser Mccord ; Elizabeth J. KaySource :
- International Dental Journal [ 0020-6539 ] ; 2005-10.
English descriptors
- KwdEn :
- Analogue, Analogue scale, Brit dent, Cantilevered, Cantilevered bridge, Clinical procedures, Clinician, Comm dent hlth, Conventional cantilevered, Conventional cantilevered bridge, Decision analysis, Dent, Dental arch, Dental arches, Denture, Denture construction, Different treatment options, Different treatments, Female patients, Final bridges, First visit, Health state, High level, Illustrative models, Implant, Implant treatment, Kayser, Likely outcome, Local anaesthetic, Lower bridges, Male patients, Metal denture, Metal implants, Metal parts, More visits, Oral health, Oral hygiene, Oral rehab, Other side, Particular outcome, Patients value, Posterior teeth, Posterior tooth, Potential outcomes, Potential reduction, Previous experience, Prosthesis, Removable, Second visit, Significant differences, Subjective experience, Such prostheses, Surgical operation, Traditional approach, Treatment options, Trial insertion, Unit cost, Upper bridges, Utility gain, Utility value, Utility values, Visual analogue scale.
- Teeft :
- Analogue, Analogue scale, Brit dent, Cantilevered, Cantilevered bridge, Clinical procedures, Clinician, Comm dent hlth, Conventional cantilevered, Conventional cantilevered bridge, Decision analysis, Dent, Dental arch, Dental arches, Denture, Denture construction, Different treatment options, Different treatments, Female patients, Final bridges, First visit, Health state, High level, Illustrative models, Implant, Implant treatment, Kayser, Likely outcome, Local anaesthetic, Lower bridges, Male patients, Metal denture, Metal implants, Metal parts, More visits, Oral health, Oral hygiene, Oral rehab, Other side, Particular outcome, Patients value, Posterior teeth, Posterior tooth, Potential outcomes, Potential reduction, Previous experience, Prosthesis, Removable, Second visit, Significant differences, Subjective experience, Such prostheses, Surgical operation, Traditional approach, Treatment options, Trial insertion, Unit cost, Upper bridges, Utility gain, Utility value, Utility values, Visual analogue scale.
Abstract
Objectives: The aim of this study was to determine how patients value the potential outcomes from different treatments for the shortened dental arch (SDA). Methods: 110 partially dentate patients were interviewed and presented with illustrative models as well as a description of the process and likely outcome of six possible treatments for the shortened dental arch. The patients were asked to indicate on a standardised visual analogue scale how they would value the health of their mouth if they had received each of the treatments described. Results: With a utility value of 0.0 representing the worst possible health state for a mouth and 1.0 representing the best, the mean utility value for ‘no treatment’ for a SDA was 0.28 (sd=0.29). For a cobalt‐chromium based removable partial denture, an acrylic‐resin based removable partial denture, implant treatment, a resin‐bonded cantilevered bridge and a conventional cantilevered fixed bridge the utility values were 0.42 (sd=0.3), 0.49 (sd=0.31), 0.53 (sd=0.35), 0.63 (sd=0.26) and 0.64 (sd=0.28) respectively. Conclusions: The treatment outcome from a cantilevered bridge attracted the highest mean utility value. Participants did not value implant treatment as highly as fixed bridgework, but they did rate the utility of implants more highly than the utility value of removable dentures. However, the patients placed a very low value on the outcome from ‘no’ treatment. Thus, the appropriateness of the shortened dental arch as an oral health goal can be questioned.
Url:
DOI: 10.1111/j.1875-595X.2005.tb00328.x
Links to Exploration step
ISTEX:7DD610874906457EC6D6DB72500E2A0F359EA682Le document en format XML
<record><TEI wicri:istexFullTextTei="biblStruct"><teiHeader><fileDesc><titleStmt><title xml:lang="en">The shortened dental arch — an assessment of patients' dental health state utility values</title><author><name sortKey="Nassani, Mohammad Zakaria" sort="Nassani, Mohammad Zakaria" uniqKey="Nassani M" first="Mohammad Zakaria" last="Nassani">Mohammad Zakaria Nassani</name><affiliation><mods:affiliation>Manchester, UK</mods:affiliation></affiliation></author><author><name sortKey="Devlin, Hugh" sort="Devlin, Hugh" uniqKey="Devlin H" first="Hugh" last="Devlin">Hugh Devlin</name><affiliation><mods:affiliation>Manchester, UK</mods:affiliation></affiliation></author><author><name sortKey="Mccord, J Fraser" sort="Mccord, J Fraser" uniqKey="Mccord J" first="J Fraser" last="Mccord">J Fraser Mccord</name><affiliation><mods:affiliation>Manchester, UK</mods:affiliation></affiliation></author><author><name sortKey="Kay, Elizabeth J" sort="Kay, Elizabeth J" uniqKey="Kay E" first="Elizabeth J" last="Kay">Elizabeth J. Kay</name><affiliation><mods:affiliation>Manchester, UK</mods:affiliation></affiliation><affiliation><mods:affiliation>E-mail: E.Kay@man.ac.uk</mods:affiliation></affiliation></author></titleStmt><publicationStmt><idno type="wicri:source">ISTEX</idno><idno type="RBID">ISTEX:7DD610874906457EC6D6DB72500E2A0F359EA682</idno><date when="2005" year="2005">2005</date><idno type="doi">10.1111/j.1875-595X.2005.tb00328.x</idno><idno type="url">https://api.istex.fr/document/7DD610874906457EC6D6DB72500E2A0F359EA682/fulltext/pdf</idno><idno type="wicri:Area/Istex/Corpus">003E33</idno><idno type="wicri:explorRef" wicri:stream="Istex" wicri:step="Corpus" wicri:corpus="ISTEX">003E33</idno></publicationStmt><sourceDesc><biblStruct><analytic><title level="a" type="main">The shortened dental arch — an assessment of patients' dental health state utility values</title><author><name sortKey="Nassani, Mohammad Zakaria" sort="Nassani, Mohammad Zakaria" uniqKey="Nassani M" first="Mohammad Zakaria" last="Nassani">Mohammad Zakaria Nassani</name><affiliation><mods:affiliation>Manchester, UK</mods:affiliation></affiliation></author><author><name sortKey="Devlin, Hugh" sort="Devlin, Hugh" uniqKey="Devlin H" first="Hugh" last="Devlin">Hugh Devlin</name><affiliation><mods:affiliation>Manchester, UK</mods:affiliation></affiliation></author><author><name sortKey="Mccord, J Fraser" sort="Mccord, J Fraser" uniqKey="Mccord J" first="J Fraser" last="Mccord">J Fraser Mccord</name><affiliation><mods:affiliation>Manchester, UK</mods:affiliation></affiliation></author><author><name sortKey="Kay, Elizabeth J" sort="Kay, Elizabeth J" uniqKey="Kay E" first="Elizabeth J" last="Kay">Elizabeth J. Kay</name><affiliation><mods:affiliation>Manchester, UK</mods:affiliation></affiliation><affiliation><mods:affiliation>E-mail: E.Kay@man.ac.uk</mods:affiliation></affiliation></author></analytic><monogr></monogr><series><title level="j" type="main">International Dental Journal</title><title level="j" type="alt">INTERNATIONAL DENTAL JOURNAL</title><idno type="ISSN">0020-6539</idno><idno type="eISSN">1875-595X</idno><imprint><biblScope unit="vol">55</biblScope><biblScope unit="issue">5</biblScope><biblScope unit="page" from="307">307</biblScope><biblScope unit="page" to="312">312</biblScope><biblScope unit="page-count">6</biblScope><publisher>Blackwell Publishing Ltd</publisher><pubPlace>Oxford, UK</pubPlace><date type="published" when="2005-10">2005-10</date></imprint><idno type="ISSN">0020-6539</idno></series></biblStruct></sourceDesc><seriesStmt><idno type="ISSN">0020-6539</idno></seriesStmt></fileDesc><profileDesc><textClass><keywords scheme="KwdEn" xml:lang="en"><term>Analogue</term><term>Analogue scale</term><term>Brit dent</term><term>Cantilevered</term><term>Cantilevered bridge</term><term>Clinical procedures</term><term>Clinician</term><term>Comm dent hlth</term><term>Conventional cantilevered</term><term>Conventional cantilevered bridge</term><term>Decision analysis</term><term>Dent</term><term>Dental arch</term><term>Dental arches</term><term>Denture</term><term>Denture construction</term><term>Different treatment options</term><term>Different treatments</term><term>Female patients</term><term>Final bridges</term><term>First visit</term><term>Health state</term><term>High level</term><term>Illustrative models</term><term>Implant</term><term>Implant treatment</term><term>Kayser</term><term>Likely outcome</term><term>Local anaesthetic</term><term>Lower bridges</term><term>Male patients</term><term>Metal denture</term><term>Metal implants</term><term>Metal parts</term><term>More visits</term><term>Oral health</term><term>Oral hygiene</term><term>Oral rehab</term><term>Other side</term><term>Particular outcome</term><term>Patients value</term><term>Posterior teeth</term><term>Posterior tooth</term><term>Potential outcomes</term><term>Potential reduction</term><term>Previous experience</term><term>Prosthesis</term><term>Removable</term><term>Second visit</term><term>Significant differences</term><term>Subjective experience</term><term>Such prostheses</term><term>Surgical operation</term><term>Traditional approach</term><term>Treatment options</term><term>Trial insertion</term><term>Unit cost</term><term>Upper bridges</term><term>Utility gain</term><term>Utility value</term><term>Utility values</term><term>Visual analogue scale</term></keywords><keywords scheme="Teeft" xml:lang="en"><term>Analogue</term><term>Analogue scale</term><term>Brit dent</term><term>Cantilevered</term><term>Cantilevered bridge</term><term>Clinical procedures</term><term>Clinician</term><term>Comm dent hlth</term><term>Conventional cantilevered</term><term>Conventional cantilevered bridge</term><term>Decision analysis</term><term>Dent</term><term>Dental arch</term><term>Dental arches</term><term>Denture</term><term>Denture construction</term><term>Different treatment options</term><term>Different treatments</term><term>Female patients</term><term>Final bridges</term><term>First visit</term><term>Health state</term><term>High level</term><term>Illustrative models</term><term>Implant</term><term>Implant treatment</term><term>Kayser</term><term>Likely outcome</term><term>Local anaesthetic</term><term>Lower bridges</term><term>Male patients</term><term>Metal denture</term><term>Metal implants</term><term>Metal parts</term><term>More visits</term><term>Oral health</term><term>Oral hygiene</term><term>Oral rehab</term><term>Other side</term><term>Particular outcome</term><term>Patients value</term><term>Posterior teeth</term><term>Posterior tooth</term><term>Potential outcomes</term><term>Potential reduction</term><term>Previous experience</term><term>Prosthesis</term><term>Removable</term><term>Second visit</term><term>Significant differences</term><term>Subjective experience</term><term>Such prostheses</term><term>Surgical operation</term><term>Traditional approach</term><term>Treatment options</term><term>Trial insertion</term><term>Unit cost</term><term>Upper bridges</term><term>Utility gain</term><term>Utility value</term><term>Utility values</term><term>Visual analogue scale</term></keywords></textClass></profileDesc></teiHeader><front><div type="abstract">Objectives: The aim of this study was to determine how patients value the potential outcomes from different treatments for the shortened dental arch (SDA). Methods: 110 partially dentate patients were interviewed and presented with illustrative models as well as a description of the process and likely outcome of six possible treatments for the shortened dental arch. The patients were asked to indicate on a standardised visual analogue scale how they would value the health of their mouth if they had received each of the treatments described. Results: With a utility value of 0.0 representing the worst possible health state for a mouth and 1.0 representing the best, the mean utility value for ‘no treatment’ for a SDA was 0.28 (sd=0.29). For a cobalt‐chromium based removable partial denture, an acrylic‐resin based removable partial denture, implant treatment, a resin‐bonded cantilevered bridge and a conventional cantilevered fixed bridge the utility values were 0.42 (sd=0.3), 0.49 (sd=0.31), 0.53 (sd=0.35), 0.63 (sd=0.26) and 0.64 (sd=0.28) respectively. Conclusions: The treatment outcome from a cantilevered bridge attracted the highest mean utility value. Participants did not value implant treatment as highly as fixed bridgework, but they did rate the utility of implants more highly than the utility value of removable dentures. However, the patients placed a very low value on the outcome from ‘no’ treatment. Thus, the appropriateness of the shortened dental arch as an oral health goal can be questioned.</div></front></TEI><istex><corpusName>wiley</corpusName><keywords><teeft><json:string>denture</json:string><json:string>cantilevered</json:string><json:string>utility value</json:string><json:string>dental arch</json:string><json:string>implant treatment</json:string><json:string>implant</json:string><json:string>utility values</json:string><json:string>prosthesis</json:string><json:string>kayser</json:string><json:string>clinician</json:string><json:string>removable</json:string><json:string>visual analogue scale</json:string><json:string>health state</json:string><json:string>oral health</json:string><json:string>conventional cantilevered bridge</json:string><json:string>oral hygiene</json:string><json:string>lower bridges</json:string><json:string>dental arches</json:string><json:string>analogue</json:string><json:string>different treatment options</json:string><json:string>high level</json:string><json:string>conventional cantilevered</json:string><json:string>oral rehab</json:string><json:string>dent</json:string><json:string>denture construction</json:string><json:string>metal parts</json:string><json:string>potential outcomes</json:string><json:string>cantilevered bridge</json:string><json:string>metal denture</json:string><json:string>different treatments</json:string><json:string>upper bridges</json:string><json:string>patients value</json:string><json:string>first visit</json:string><json:string>second visit</json:string><json:string>trial insertion</json:string><json:string>final bridges</json:string><json:string>more visits</json:string><json:string>other side</json:string><json:string>clinical procedures</json:string><json:string>surgical operation</json:string><json:string>metal implants</json:string><json:string>local anaesthetic</json:string><json:string>illustrative models</json:string><json:string>potential reduction</json:string><json:string>particular outcome</json:string><json:string>likely outcome</json:string><json:string>treatment options</json:string><json:string>male patients</json:string><json:string>female patients</json:string><json:string>previous experience</json:string><json:string>significant differences</json:string><json:string>traditional approach</json:string><json:string>unit cost</json:string><json:string>utility gain</json:string><json:string>subjective experience</json:string><json:string>decision analysis</json:string><json:string>analogue scale</json:string><json:string>such prostheses</json:string><json:string>posterior teeth</json:string><json:string>comm dent hlth</json:string><json:string>brit dent</json:string><json:string>posterior tooth</json:string></teeft></keywords><author><json:item><name>Mohammad Zakaria Nassani</name><affiliations><json:string>Manchester, UK</json:string></affiliations></json:item><json:item><name>Hugh Devlin</name><affiliations><json:string>Manchester, UK</json:string></affiliations></json:item><json:item><name>J Fraser McCord</name><affiliations><json:string>Manchester, UK</json:string></affiliations></json:item><json:item><name>Elizabeth J Kay</name><affiliations><json:string>Manchester, UK</json:string><json:string>E-mail: E.Kay@man.ac.uk</json:string></affiliations></json:item></author><subject><json:item><lang><json:string>eng</json:string></lang><value>Shortened dental arch</value></json:item><json:item><lang><json:string>eng</json:string></lang><value>utility</value></json:item><json:item><lang><json:string>eng</json:string></lang><value>visual analogue scale</value></json:item></subject><articleId><json:string>IDJ328</json:string></articleId><arkIstex>ark:/67375/WNG-V03VB1TJ-N</arkIstex><language><json:string>eng</json:string></language><originalGenre><json:string>article</json:string></originalGenre><abstract>Objectives: The aim of this study was to determine how patients value the potential outcomes from different treatments for the shortened dental arch (SDA). Methods: 110 partially dentate patients were interviewed and presented with illustrative models as well as a description of the process and likely outcome of six possible treatments for the shortened dental arch. The patients were asked to indicate on a standardised visual analogue scale how they would value the health of their mouth if they had received each of the treatments described. Results: With a utility value of 0.0 representing the worst possible health state for a mouth and 1.0 representing the best, the mean utility value for ‘no treatment’ for a SDA was 0.28 (sd=0.29). For a cobalt‐chromium based removable partial denture, an acrylic‐resin based removable partial denture, implant treatment, a resin‐bonded cantilevered bridge and a conventional cantilevered fixed bridge the utility values were 0.42 (sd=0.3), 0.49 (sd=0.31), 0.53 (sd=0.35), 0.63 (sd=0.26) and 0.64 (sd=0.28) respectively. Conclusions: The treatment outcome from a cantilevered bridge attracted the highest mean utility value. Participants did not value implant treatment as highly as fixed bridgework, but they did rate the utility of implants more highly than the utility value of removable dentures. However, the patients placed a very low value on the outcome from ‘no’ treatment. Thus, the appropriateness of the shortened dental arch as an oral health goal can be questioned.</abstract><qualityIndicators><score>8.633</score><pdfWordCount>3837</pdfWordCount><pdfCharCount>22630</pdfCharCount><pdfVersion>1.6</pdfVersion><pdfPageCount>6</pdfPageCount><pdfPageSize>595 x 842 pts (A4)</pdfPageSize><refBibsNative>true</refBibsNative><abstractWordCount>233</abstractWordCount><abstractCharCount>1525</abstractCharCount><keywordCount>3</keywordCount></qualityIndicators><title>The shortened dental arch — an assessment of patients' dental health state utility values</title><pmid><json:string>16245466</json:string></pmid><genre><json:string>article</json:string></genre><host><title>International Dental Journal</title><language><json:string>unknown</json:string></language><doi><json:string>10.1002/(ISSN)1875-595X</json:string></doi><issn><json:string>0020-6539</json:string></issn><eissn><json:string>1875-595X</json:string></eissn><publisherId><json:string>IDJ</json:string></publisherId><volume>55</volume><issue>5</issue><pages><first>307</first><last>312</last><total>6</total></pages><genre><json:string>journal</json:string></genre></host><namedEntities><unitex><date><json:string>2005</json:string><json:string>1989</json:string></date><geogName></geogName><orgName><json:string>UK Department of Health</json:string><json:string>University Dental Hospital of Manchester</json:string><json:string>World Health Organisation</json:string></orgName><orgName_funder></orgName_funder><orgName_provider></orgName_provider><persName><json:string>Hugh Devlin</json:string><json:string>Fraser McCord</json:string><json:string>Elizabeth</json:string></persName><placeName></placeName><ref_url></ref_url><ref_bibl><json:string>Nassani et al.</json:string></ref_bibl><bibl></bibl></unitex></namedEntities><ark><json:string>ark:/67375/WNG-V03VB1TJ-N</json:string></ark><categories><wos><json:string>1 - science</json:string><json:string>2 - dentistry, oral surgery & medicine</json:string></wos><scienceMetrix><json:string>1 - health sciences</json:string><json:string>2 - clinical medicine</json:string><json:string>3 - dentistry</json:string></scienceMetrix><scopus><json:string>1 - Health Sciences</json:string><json:string>2 - Dentistry</json:string><json:string>3 - General Dentistry</json:string></scopus></categories><publicationDate>2005</publicationDate><copyrightDate>2005</copyrightDate><doi><json:string>10.1111/j.1875-595X.2005.tb00328.x</json:string></doi><id>7DD610874906457EC6D6DB72500E2A0F359EA682</id><score>1</score><fulltext><json:item><extension>pdf</extension><original>true</original><mimetype>application/pdf</mimetype><uri>https://api.istex.fr/document/7DD610874906457EC6D6DB72500E2A0F359EA682/fulltext/pdf</uri></json:item><json:item><extension>zip</extension><original>false</original><mimetype>application/zip</mimetype><uri>https://api.istex.fr/document/7DD610874906457EC6D6DB72500E2A0F359EA682/fulltext/zip</uri></json:item><istex:fulltextTEI uri="https://api.istex.fr/document/7DD610874906457EC6D6DB72500E2A0F359EA682/fulltext/tei"><teiHeader><fileDesc><titleStmt><title level="a" type="main">The shortened dental arch — an assessment of patients' dental health state utility values</title></titleStmt><publicationStmt><authority>ISTEX</authority><publisher>Blackwell Publishing Ltd</publisher><pubPlace>Oxford, UK</pubPlace><availability><licence>2005 FDI/World Dental Press</licence></availability><date type="published" when="2005-10"></date></publicationStmt><notesStmt><note type="content-type" subtype="article" source="article" scheme="https://content-type.data.istex.fr/ark:/67375/XTP-6N5SZHKN-D">article</note><note type="publication-type" subtype="journal" scheme="https://publication-type.data.istex.fr/ark:/67375/JMC-0GLKJH51-B">journal</note></notesStmt><sourceDesc><biblStruct type="article"><analytic><title level="a" type="main">The shortened dental arch — an assessment of patients' dental health state utility values</title><author xml:id="author-0000"><persName><forename type="first">Mohammad Zakaria</forename><surname>Nassani</surname></persName><affiliation>Manchester, UK<address><country key="GB"></country></address></affiliation></author><author xml:id="author-0001"><persName><forename type="first">Hugh</forename><surname>Devlin</surname></persName><affiliation>Manchester, UK<address><country key="GB"></country></address></affiliation></author><author xml:id="author-0002"><persName><forename type="first">J Fraser</forename><surname>McCord</surname></persName><affiliation>Manchester, UK<address><country key="GB"></country></address></affiliation></author><author xml:id="author-0003" role="corresp"><persName><forename type="first">Elizabeth J</forename><surname>Kay</surname></persName><affiliation>Manchester, UK<address><country key="GB"></country></address></affiliation><affiliation>Professor of Dental Health Services Research, University Dental Hospital, Higher Cambridge Street, Manchester, M15 6FH, UK. Email: E.Kay@man.ac.uk</affiliation></author><idno type="istex">7DD610874906457EC6D6DB72500E2A0F359EA682</idno><idno type="ark">ark:/67375/WNG-V03VB1TJ-N</idno><idno type="DOI">10.1111/j.1875-595X.2005.tb00328.x</idno><idno type="unit">IDJ328</idno><idno type="toTypesetVersion">file:IDJ.IDJ328.pdf</idno></analytic><monogr><title level="j" type="main">International Dental Journal</title><title level="j" type="alt">INTERNATIONAL DENTAL JOURNAL</title><idno type="pISSN">0020-6539</idno><idno type="eISSN">1875-595X</idno><idno type="book-DOI">10.1002/(ISSN)1875-595X</idno><idno type="book-part-DOI">10.1111/idj.2005.55.issue-5</idno><idno type="product">IDJ</idno><idno type="publisherDivision">ST</idno><imprint><biblScope unit="vol">55</biblScope><biblScope unit="issue">5</biblScope><biblScope unit="page" from="307">307</biblScope><biblScope unit="page" to="312">312</biblScope><biblScope unit="page-count">6</biblScope><publisher>Blackwell Publishing Ltd</publisher><pubPlace>Oxford, UK</pubPlace><date type="published" when="2005-10"></date></imprint></monogr></biblStruct></sourceDesc></fileDesc><profileDesc><abstract xml:lang="en" style="main"><p><hi rend="bold">Objectives</hi>: The aim of this study was to determine how patients value the potential outcomes from different treatments for the shortened dental arch (SDA). <hi rend="bold">Methods</hi>: 110 partially dentate patients were interviewed and presented with illustrative models as well as a description of the process and likely outcome of six possible treatments for the shortened dental arch. The patients were asked to indicate on a standardised visual analogue scale how they would value the health of their mouth if they had received each of the treatments described. <hi rend="bold">Results</hi>: With a utility value of 0.0 representing the worst possible health state for a mouth and 1.0 representing the best, the mean utility value for ‘no treatment’ for a SDA was 0.28 (sd=0.29). For a cobalt‐chromium based removable partial denture, an acrylic‐resin based removable partial denture, implant treatment, a resin‐bonded cantilevered bridge and a conventional cantilevered fixed bridge the utility values were 0.42 (sd=0.3), 0.49 (sd=0.31), 0.53 (sd=0.35), 0.63 (sd=0.26) and 0.64 (sd=0.28) respectively. <hi rend="bold">Conclusions</hi>: The treatment outcome from a cantilevered bridge attracted the highest mean utility value. Participants did not value implant treatment as highly as fixed bridgework, but they did rate the utility of implants more highly than the utility value of removable dentures. However, the patients placed a very low value on the outcome from ‘no’ treatment. Thus, the appropriateness of the shortened dental arch as an oral health goal can be questioned.</p></abstract><textClass><keywords xml:lang="en"><term xml:id="k1">Shortened dental arch</term><term xml:id="k2">utility</term><term xml:id="k3">visual analogue scale</term></keywords><keywords rend="tocHeading1"><term>Scientific Paper</term></keywords></textClass><langUsage><language ident="en"></language></langUsage></profileDesc></teiHeader></istex:fulltextTEI><json:item><extension>txt</extension><original>false</original><mimetype>text/plain</mimetype><uri>https://api.istex.fr/document/7DD610874906457EC6D6DB72500E2A0F359EA682/fulltext/txt</uri></json:item></fulltext><metadata><istex:metadataXml wicri:clean="Wiley, elements deleted: body"><istex:xmlDeclaration>version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8" standalone="yes"</istex:xmlDeclaration><istex:document><component version="2.0" type="serialArticle" xml:lang="en"><header><publicationMeta level="product"><publisherInfo><publisherName>Blackwell Publishing Ltd</publisherName><publisherLoc>Oxford, UK</publisherLoc></publisherInfo><doi origin="wiley" registered="yes">10.1002/(ISSN)1875-595X</doi><issn type="print">0020-6539</issn><issn type="electronic">1875-595X</issn><idGroup><id type="product" value="IDJ"></id><id type="publisherDivision" value="ST"></id></idGroup><titleGroup><title type="main" sort="INTERNATIONAL DENTAL JOURNAL">International Dental Journal</title></titleGroup></publicationMeta><publicationMeta level="part" position="10105"><doi origin="wiley">10.1111/idj.2005.55.issue-5</doi><numberingGroup><numbering type="journalVolume" number="55">55</numbering><numbering type="journalIssue" number="5">5</numbering></numberingGroup><coverDate startDate="2005-10">October 2005</coverDate></publicationMeta><publicationMeta level="unit" type="article" position="4" status="forIssue"><doi origin="wiley">10.1111/j.1875-595X.2005.tb00328.x</doi><idGroup><id type="unit" value="IDJ328"></id></idGroup><countGroup><count type="pageTotal" number="6"></count></countGroup><titleGroup><title type="tocHeading1">Scientific Paper</title></titleGroup><copyright>2005 FDI/World Dental Press</copyright><eventGroup><event type="xmlConverted" agent="Converter:BPG_TO_WML3G version:2.4.8 mode:FullText" date="2011-04-07"></event><event type="firstOnline" date="2011-04-07"></event><event type="publishedOnlineFinalForm" date="2011-04-07"></event><event type="xmlConverted" agent="Converter:WILEY_ML3G_TO_WILEY_ML3GV2 version:3.8.8" date="2014-01-27"></event><event type="xmlConverted" agent="Converter:WML3G_To_WML3G version:4.1.7 mode:FullText,remove_FC" date="2014-10-24"></event></eventGroup><numberingGroup><numbering type="pageFirst" number="307">307</numbering><numbering type="pageLast" number="312">312</numbering></numberingGroup><correspondenceTo>Professor of Dental Health Services Research, University Dental Hospital, Higher Cambridge Street, Manchester, M15 6FH, UK. Email: <email>E.Kay@man.ac.uk</email></correspondenceTo><linkGroup><link type="toTypesetVersion" href="file:IDJ.IDJ328.pdf"></link></linkGroup></publicationMeta><contentMeta><countGroup><count type="referenceTotal" number="21"></count><count type="linksCrossRef" number="5"></count></countGroup><titleGroup><title type="main">The shortened dental arch — an assessment of patients' dental health state utility values</title></titleGroup><creators><creator creatorRole="author" xml:id="cr1" affiliationRef="#a1"><personName><givenNames>Mohammad Zakaria</givenNames><familyName>Nassani</familyName></personName></creator><creator creatorRole="author" xml:id="cr2" affiliationRef="#a1"><personName><givenNames>Hugh</givenNames><familyName>Devlin</familyName></personName></creator><creator creatorRole="author" xml:id="cr3" affiliationRef="#a1"><personName><givenNames>J Fraser</givenNames><familyName>McCord</familyName></personName></creator><creator creatorRole="author" xml:id="cr4" affiliationRef="#a1" corresponding="yes"><personName><givenNames>Elizabeth J</givenNames><familyName>Kay</familyName></personName></creator></creators><affiliationGroup><affiliation xml:id="a1" countryCode="GB"><unparsedAffiliation>Manchester, UK</unparsedAffiliation></affiliation></affiliationGroup><keywordGroup xml:lang="en"><keyword xml:id="k1">Shortened dental arch</keyword><keyword xml:id="k2">utility</keyword><keyword xml:id="k3">visual analogue scale</keyword></keywordGroup><abstractGroup><abstract type="main" xml:lang="en"><p><b>Objectives</b>: The aim of this study was to determine how patients value the potential outcomes from different treatments for the shortened dental arch (SDA). <b>Methods</b>: 110 partially dentate patients were interviewed and presented with illustrative models as well as a description of the process and likely outcome of six possible treatments for the shortened dental arch. The patients were asked to indicate on a standardised visual analogue scale how they would value the health of their mouth if they had received each of the treatments described. <b>Results</b>: With a utility value of 0.0 representing the worst possible health state for a mouth and 1.0 representing the best, the mean utility value for ‘no treatment’ for a SDA was 0.28 (sd=0.29). For a cobalt‐chromium based removable partial denture, an acrylic‐resin based removable partial denture, implant treatment, a resin‐bonded cantilevered bridge and a conventional cantilevered fixed bridge the utility values were 0.42 (sd=0.3), 0.49 (sd=0.31), 0.53 (sd=0.35), 0.63 (sd=0.26) and 0.64 (sd=0.28) respectively. <b>Conclusions</b>: The treatment outcome from a cantilevered bridge attracted the highest mean utility value. Participants did not value implant treatment as highly as fixed bridgework, but they did rate the utility of implants more highly than the utility value of removable dentures. However, the patients placed a very low value on the outcome from ‘no’ treatment. Thus, the appropriateness of the shortened dental arch as an oral health goal can be questioned.</p></abstract></abstractGroup></contentMeta></header></component></istex:document></istex:metadataXml><mods version="3.6"><titleInfo lang="en"><title>The shortened dental arch — an assessment of patients' dental health state utility values</title></titleInfo><titleInfo type="alternative" contentType="CDATA" lang="en"><title>The shortened dental arch — an assessment of patients' dental health state utility values</title></titleInfo><name type="personal"><namePart type="given">Mohammad Zakaria</namePart><namePart type="family">Nassani</namePart><affiliation>Manchester, UK</affiliation><role><roleTerm type="text">author</roleTerm></role></name><name type="personal"><namePart type="given">Hugh</namePart><namePart type="family">Devlin</namePart><affiliation>Manchester, UK</affiliation><role><roleTerm type="text">author</roleTerm></role></name><name type="personal"><namePart type="given">J Fraser</namePart><namePart type="family">McCord</namePart><affiliation>Manchester, UK</affiliation><role><roleTerm type="text">author</roleTerm></role></name><name type="personal"><namePart type="given">Elizabeth J</namePart><namePart type="family">Kay</namePart><affiliation>Manchester, UK</affiliation><affiliation>E-mail: E.Kay@man.ac.uk</affiliation><role><roleTerm type="text">author</roleTerm></role></name><typeOfResource>text</typeOfResource><genre type="article" displayLabel="article" authority="ISTEX" authorityURI="https://content-type.data.istex.fr" valueURI="https://content-type.data.istex.fr/ark:/67375/XTP-6N5SZHKN-D">article</genre><originInfo><publisher>Blackwell Publishing Ltd</publisher><place><placeTerm type="text">Oxford, UK</placeTerm></place><dateIssued encoding="w3cdtf">2005-10</dateIssued><copyrightDate encoding="w3cdtf">2005</copyrightDate></originInfo><language><languageTerm type="code" authority="rfc3066">en</languageTerm><languageTerm type="code" authority="iso639-2b">eng</languageTerm></language><physicalDescription><extent unit="references">21</extent><extent unit="linksCrossRef">5</extent></physicalDescription><abstract>Objectives: The aim of this study was to determine how patients value the potential outcomes from different treatments for the shortened dental arch (SDA). Methods: 110 partially dentate patients were interviewed and presented with illustrative models as well as a description of the process and likely outcome of six possible treatments for the shortened dental arch. The patients were asked to indicate on a standardised visual analogue scale how they would value the health of their mouth if they had received each of the treatments described. Results: With a utility value of 0.0 representing the worst possible health state for a mouth and 1.0 representing the best, the mean utility value for ‘no treatment’ for a SDA was 0.28 (sd=0.29). For a cobalt‐chromium based removable partial denture, an acrylic‐resin based removable partial denture, implant treatment, a resin‐bonded cantilevered bridge and a conventional cantilevered fixed bridge the utility values were 0.42 (sd=0.3), 0.49 (sd=0.31), 0.53 (sd=0.35), 0.63 (sd=0.26) and 0.64 (sd=0.28) respectively. Conclusions: The treatment outcome from a cantilevered bridge attracted the highest mean utility value. Participants did not value implant treatment as highly as fixed bridgework, but they did rate the utility of implants more highly than the utility value of removable dentures. However, the patients placed a very low value on the outcome from ‘no’ treatment. Thus, the appropriateness of the shortened dental arch as an oral health goal can be questioned.</abstract><subject lang="en"><genre>keywords</genre><topic>Shortened dental arch</topic><topic>utility</topic><topic>visual analogue scale</topic></subject><relatedItem type="host"><titleInfo><title>International Dental Journal</title></titleInfo><genre type="journal" authority="ISTEX" authorityURI="https://publication-type.data.istex.fr" valueURI="https://publication-type.data.istex.fr/ark:/67375/JMC-0GLKJH51-B">journal</genre><identifier type="ISSN">0020-6539</identifier><identifier type="eISSN">1875-595X</identifier><identifier type="DOI">10.1002/(ISSN)1875-595X</identifier><identifier type="PublisherID">IDJ</identifier><part><date>2005</date><detail type="volume"><caption>vol.</caption><number>55</number></detail><detail type="issue"><caption>no.</caption><number>5</number></detail><extent unit="pages"><start>307</start><end>312</end><total>6</total></extent></part></relatedItem><identifier type="istex">7DD610874906457EC6D6DB72500E2A0F359EA682</identifier><identifier type="ark">ark:/67375/WNG-V03VB1TJ-N</identifier><identifier type="DOI">10.1111/j.1875-595X.2005.tb00328.x</identifier><identifier type="ArticleID">IDJ328</identifier><accessCondition type="use and reproduction" contentType="copyright">2005 FDI/World Dental Press</accessCondition><recordInfo><recordContentSource authority="ISTEX" authorityURI="https://loaded-corpus.data.istex.fr" valueURI="https://loaded-corpus.data.istex.fr/ark:/67375/XBH-L0C46X92-X">wiley</recordContentSource><recordOrigin>Blackwell Publishing Ltd</recordOrigin></recordInfo></mods><json:item><extension>json</extension><original>false</original><mimetype>application/json</mimetype><uri>https://api.istex.fr/document/7DD610874906457EC6D6DB72500E2A0F359EA682/metadata/json</uri></json:item></metadata><serie></serie></istex></record>Pour manipuler ce document sous Unix (Dilib)
EXPLOR_STEP=$WICRI_ROOT/Wicri/Santé/explor/EdenteV2/Data/Istex/Corpus
HfdSelect -h $EXPLOR_STEP/biblio.hfd -nk 003E33 | SxmlIndent | more
Ou
HfdSelect -h $EXPLOR_AREA/Data/Istex/Corpus/biblio.hfd -nk 003E33 | SxmlIndent | more
Pour mettre un lien sur cette page dans le réseau Wicri
{{Explor lien
|wiki= Wicri/Santé
|area= EdenteV2
|flux= Istex
|étape= Corpus
|type= RBID
|clé= ISTEX:7DD610874906457EC6D6DB72500E2A0F359EA682
|texte= The shortened dental arch — an assessment of patients' dental health state utility values
}}
| This area was generated with Dilib version V0.6.32. |  |