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 (2022). Randomized controlled pilot study assessing efficacy, efficiency, and patient-reported outcomes measures of chairside and labside single-tooth restorations. (In Press). Journal of esthetic and restorative dentistry Wiley 10.1111/jerd.12909

[img]
Preview
Text
J_Esthet_Restor_Dent_-_2022_-_Zuercher_-_Randomized_controlled_pilot_study_assessing_efficacy_efficiency_and.pdf - Published Version
Available under License Creative Commons: Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works (CC-BY-NC-ND).

Download (6MB) | Preview

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.

Item Type:

Journal Article (Original Article)

Division/Institute:

08 Faculty of Science > Department of Mathematics and Statistics > Institute of Mathematical Statistics and Actuarial Science

UniBE Contributor:

Hüsler, Jürg

Subjects:

300 Social sciences, sociology & anthropology > 360 Social problems & social services
500 Science > 510 Mathematics

ISSN:

1708-8240

Publisher:

Wiley

Language:

English

Submitter:

Pubmed Import

Date Deposited:

19 Apr 2022 17:10

Last Modified:

05 Dec 2022 16:18

Publisher DOI:

10.1111/jerd.12909

PubMed ID:

35421283

Uncontrolled Keywords:

chairside digital workflow labside patient-reported outcomes single-tooth restorations

BORIS DOI:

10.48350/169327

URI:

https://boris.unibe.ch/id/eprint/169327

Actions (login required)

Edit item Edit item
Provide Feedback