Outcome assessment of non-surgical root canal treatment by patients: what factors can influence their evaluation?

7Citations
Citations of this article
25Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.
Get full text

Abstract

Aims This study aims to identify factors considered by patients in assessing their treatment outcome after receiving non-surgical root canal treatments. Methods Participants (n = 225) were requested to complete a questionnaire that asked about the treatment outcome; whether successful, acceptable or failure. Participants were asked about factors related to the procedure, the dentist and the dental practice. Procedure-related factors included: disappearance of pain and/or swelling, gaining biting and chewing ability, absence of complications, post-operative appearance, and influence by practitioner's opinion. Dentist-related factors included: gender, age, appearance, qualifications, reputation, relationship with the patient, clinical handling skills, and social skills. Practice-related factors included: location, tidiness and organisation, equipment and furnishing, and cleanliness and hygiene. Simple cross tabulations of patients' responses and potential associated factors were performed using chi-squared (χ2) tests to analyse the data. Results Disappearance of pain and/or swelling, gaining chewing ability, absence of complications, post-operative appearance, and tidiness and organisation of the clinic were found to be significantly associated with patients' assessment. None of the factors related to the treating dentist were significant. Conclusions Patients may share the same perception about their treatment outcome as their dentists. Absence of symptoms, and gaining normal appearance and function are the main factors that patients consider in their evaluation.

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Atmeh, A., & Al-Hadi Hamasha, A. (2020). Outcome assessment of non-surgical root canal treatment by patients: what factors can influence their evaluation? British Dental Journal, 228(10), 762–766. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41415-020-1528-4

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free