The aim of this study was to investigate if a minimally invasive oral health package with the use of atraumatic restorative treatment (ART) or a conventional restorative technique (CT) would result in any perceived benefit from the patients' perspective and if there would be any difference between the two treatment groups.
In this randomised clinical trial, 99 independently living older adults (65-90 years) with carious lesions were randomly allocated to receive either ART or conventional restorations using minimally invasive/intervention dentistry (MID) principles. Patients completed an Oral Health Impact Profile (OHIP)-14 questionnaire before and 2 months after treatment. They were also asked to complete a global transition question about their oral health after treatment.
At baseline, the mean OHIP-14 scores recorded were 7.34 (ART) and 7.44 (CT). Two months after treatment intervention, 90 patients answered the OHIP-14 and the mean scores were 7.23 (not significant (n.s.)) and 10.38 (n.s.) for the ART and CT groups, respectively. Overall, 75.5 % of patients stated that their oral health was better compared to the beginning of treatment.
Although not shown by the OHIP-14, patients perceived an improvement in their overall oral status after treatment, as demonstrated by the global transition ratings in both groups.
Dental treatment using minimally invasive techniques might be a good alternative to treat older individuals, and it can improve their oral health both objectively and subjectively.