English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

ISSN Online 0719-2479 www.joralres.com © 2017 78 In dentistry, as in the rest of the oral and craniofacial sciences, only a small proportion of our clinical activities are related to mortality and survival. Most of our clinical activities focus on restoring function and aesthetics. During the last years, this approach has been tempered with minimally invasive procedures, improving the comfort, reducing the duration and sometimes the cost of the procedures. But how is the quality of a treatment evaluated in terms of function and aesthetics? When oral rehabilitation clinical cases are exposed in congresses or seminars, the quality of the photographs is simply artistic, even more so when the conference is in a fancy hotel. Most of the attendees are always impressed with the aesthetic quality of the treatment. At other times, the improvement or recovery of functionality after treatment is also sometimes shown. What we can see is that dentists (and probably the rest of the health professionals) evaluate the results of the treatment from their own perspective, as if it were their own mouth and face. Is this adequate? In almost the entire world, and at least in great part of Chile, the patients continue being patient and very patient, demanding little and submissive to the recommendations of the professional. But things are slowly changing, they are becoming not so patient, they are more demanding and less submissive than 20 years ago. It seems that they are regaining sovereignty over their face and mouth, at least some of the patients. They are no longer patients as such, they are now users or customers, customers and not clients. However, most still remain patient and the sovereign is the dentist, a dentist who adapts to satisfying this patient in transit to becoming a customer. How has dental research responded to these changes? Several decades ago, from the medical and social sector appeared the concept of “health related quality of life”. This concept focuses on evaluating the personal well-being produced by our physical and mental health. Currently there are many instruments focused on quantitatively evaluating this concept, the vast majority correspond to scales that are relatively easy to apply.1 In dentistry we have imported this phenomenon and we have “quality of life related to oral health”, “a multidimensional construct that reflects (among other things) people’s comfort when eating, sleeping, and engaging in social interaction; their self-esteem; and their satisfaction with respect to their oral health”. Here we also find a large number of instruments available, from those evaluating the quality of life related to oral health in general, relative to implants, in children, in We need more qualitative research in oral and craniofacial sciences.