The long‐term influence of orthodontic treatment on adults' psychosocial outcomes: Reflections and critique on a recent commentary

Doğramacı, Esma J.; Brennan, David S.

doi:10.1111/ocr.12432

Cited by 1 publication

(1 citation statement)

References 4 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Additionally, PROMs are increasingly being used to not only support clinical patient management but to also assess provider performance, the latter being applied in certain elective surgery procedures in England where prospective patients can decide on where they choose to be treated by consulting reports based on previous patient outcomes, amongst other factors (Black, 2013). Publication of PROMs also enables public accountability of performance and their comparison between different providers (Black, 2013), which reinforces the importance of collecting and reporting data on core outcome measures for use in audits and research (Doğramacı, 2020).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Patient‐related outcomes and Oral Health‐Related Quality of Life in endodontics

Doğramacı

Rossi‐Fedele

2022

Int Endodontic J

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

There is increased interest in outcome measures that complement the classic goal of endodontics, being the prevention and healing of apical periodontitis. Possible outcome measures can be subdivided into patient‐centred outcomes (PCOs), encompassing data collected by nonpatients aiming to assess the effectiveness of an intervention and patient‐reported outcomes (PROs), which are reported directly by the patient. PROs can be subsequently classed into PRO measures that ascertain patients' view of their symptoms, their functional status, and their health‐related quality of life, and patient‐reported experience measures that focus on aspects including the humanity of care, patient satisfaction, patient preference and adherence, personal costs, expectation fulfilment, and decision regrets. The present review aims to define various patient‐related outcomes and discuss the literature available regarding PCOs and PROs in endodontics. This includes those proposed to assess the effectiveness of endodontic treatment for pulpitis and apical periodontitis for use in the development of European Society of Endodontology S3‐level clinical practice guidelines that have been included by all working groups, except for the radiographic assessment of apical periodontitis. Based on limited evidence in the field, it can be summarized that after recall periods of various lengths, endodontic treatment is associated with a high likelihood of tooth survival and limited need for further intervention, including extraction and further restorative procedures. Oral Health‐Related Quality of Life (OHRQoL) is likely to improve following the completion of treatment. Nonetheless, the literature assessing the association between OHRQoL and endodontics is hampered by the use of instruments that have not been previously validated. Amongst the remaining outcome measures discussed in the present review, it is worth highlighting that there is only one study assessing exacerbations in teeth with the presence of endodontic pathosis, which suggests a very low incidence of this adverse effect following endodontic treatment. Patients' expectation fulfilment, adherence, and satisfaction are closely inter‐related and depend also on various nonclinical factors. Further studies assessing PCOs and PROs, in association with healing and prevention of apical periodontitis, are required to better understand endodontic treatment from the perspective of patients.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%