Header

UZH-Logo

Maintenance Infos

Randomized controlled pilot study assessing efficacy, efficiency, and patient-reported outcomes measures of chairside and labside single-tooth restorations


Zuercher, Anina N; Ioannidis, Alexis; Hüsler, Jürg; Mehl, Albert; Hämmerle, Christoph H F; Thoma, Daniel S (2023). Randomized controlled pilot study assessing efficacy, efficiency, and patient-reported outcomes measures of chairside and labside single-tooth restorations. Journal of Esthetic and Restorative Dentistry, 35(1):74-83.

Abstract

OBJECTIVES
To test whether or not a chairside workflow (CHAIR) is similar to a labside workflow (LAB) in terms of efficacy (primary outcome) and efficiency (secondary outcome).
MATERIAL AND METHODS
Eighteen subjects in need of a single-tooth restoration in the posterior region of the maxilla or mandible were consecutively recruited and randomly assigned to the CHAIR or LAB workflow. Patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs; efficacy) were assessed using a questionnaire with visual analog scale. The white AEsthetic score (WES) was applied to evaluate the AEsthetic outcome objectively. The clinical and laboratory time (efficiency) were recorded. Nonparametric methods were applied for the group comparisons.
RESULTS
The overall median AEsthetic evaluation after treatment was 10 (interquartile range = IQR: 9.5-10) in group CHAIR and 10 (IQR: 9.5-10) in-group LAB (Mann-Whitney [MW] test p = 1.000). The WES amounted to 4 (IQR: 3-5) (CHAIR) and to 8 (IQR: 7-9) (LAB) (MW test p < 0.0001). The median total working time for the clinician in-group CHAIR was 49.9 min. (IQR: 40.9-63.7) and 41.4 min. (IQR: 37.2-58.2) in-group LAB (MW test p = 0.387).
CONCLUSIONS
Subjective PROMs of single-tooth supported restorations fabricated in a CHAIR or LAB workflow led to similar scores of patients' satisfaction and a moderate negative correlation for the objective evaluation of the clinician in the LAB workflow.
CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE
PROMs can be considered a key element in the decision-making process for restoring single-tooth restorations. The patients' perception of AEsthetics was similar for the CHAIR or LAB workflows. The additional efforts undertaken with the LAB workflow did not result in a patient benefit when compared to a CHAIR workflow.

Abstract

OBJECTIVES
To test whether or not a chairside workflow (CHAIR) is similar to a labside workflow (LAB) in terms of efficacy (primary outcome) and efficiency (secondary outcome).
MATERIAL AND METHODS
Eighteen subjects in need of a single-tooth restoration in the posterior region of the maxilla or mandible were consecutively recruited and randomly assigned to the CHAIR or LAB workflow. Patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs; efficacy) were assessed using a questionnaire with visual analog scale. The white AEsthetic score (WES) was applied to evaluate the AEsthetic outcome objectively. The clinical and laboratory time (efficiency) were recorded. Nonparametric methods were applied for the group comparisons.
RESULTS
The overall median AEsthetic evaluation after treatment was 10 (interquartile range = IQR: 9.5-10) in group CHAIR and 10 (IQR: 9.5-10) in-group LAB (Mann-Whitney [MW] test p = 1.000). The WES amounted to 4 (IQR: 3-5) (CHAIR) and to 8 (IQR: 7-9) (LAB) (MW test p < 0.0001). The median total working time for the clinician in-group CHAIR was 49.9 min. (IQR: 40.9-63.7) and 41.4 min. (IQR: 37.2-58.2) in-group LAB (MW test p = 0.387).
CONCLUSIONS
Subjective PROMs of single-tooth supported restorations fabricated in a CHAIR or LAB workflow led to similar scores of patients' satisfaction and a moderate negative correlation for the objective evaluation of the clinician in the LAB workflow.
CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE
PROMs can be considered a key element in the decision-making process for restoring single-tooth restorations. The patients' perception of AEsthetics was similar for the CHAIR or LAB workflows. The additional efforts undertaken with the LAB workflow did not result in a patient benefit when compared to a CHAIR workflow.

Statistics

Citations

Dimensions.ai Metrics
2 citations in Web of Science®
1 citation in Scopus®
Google Scholar™

Altmetrics

Downloads

28 downloads since deposited on 21 Sep 2022
9 downloads since 12 months
Detailed statistics

Additional indexing

Item Type:Journal Article, refereed, further contribution
Communities & Collections:04 Faculty of Medicine > Center for Dental Medicine > Clinic of Reconstructive Dentistry
Dewey Decimal Classification:610 Medicine & health
Scopus Subject Areas:Health Sciences > General Dentistry
Language:English
Date:1 January 2023
Deposited On:21 Sep 2022 15:44
Last Modified:27 Jun 2024 01:39
Publisher:Wiley-Blackwell Publishing, Inc.
ISSN:1496-4155
OA Status:Green
Free access at:Publisher DOI. An embargo period may apply.
Publisher DOI:https://doi.org/10.1111/jerd.12909
PubMed ID:35421283
  • Content: Published Version
  • Language: English
  • Licence: Creative Commons: Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International (CC BY-NC-ND 4.0)