Oral Rehabilitation: Decision Making Using Structured Interviews

The indication for replacement of teeth is usually based on insufficient aesthetic, masticatory and/or phonetic function. The decision making when and how prosthetic restorations should be used in order to restore these essential functions should not only be based on a professional evaluation. The patient's wishes and expectations may be even more important. However, evaluations of methods for critical individual treatment planning are missing. Objectives: To compare the ability of three different methods for prosthodontic decision making, to identify important patient oriented cues. Methods: Sixty patients requesting treatment for “major” problems with their dentition or insufficient prosthetic restorations were interviewed using a structured qualitative interview method (SEIQoL-DW). The information gathered from these interviews was compared with that obtained from an oral health related quality of life questionnaire (OHIP-49) and a traditional case recording. Results: Various and new information was obtained when using the qualitative interview compared to the OHIP-49 and the traditional case recording. A median of 11 out of 17 (65%) cues from the interviews was not recorded with the OHIP-49 and 13 out of 17 (76%) was not recorded with the traditional case recordings. The OHIP-49 showed 3 out of 14 (21%) cues and the case recording 1 out of 5 (20%) cues not recorded by the interviews. The SEIQoL-DW interviews also resulted in additional types of information as compared to both the OHIP-49 and case recording. Conclusion: The results indicated that the structured qualitative interview may demonstrate various and new areas of the patients' problems and thereby be beneficial for decision making in oral rehabilitation. Further studies will assess the methods ability to measure the effect of oral rehabilitation.