{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.03679175864606328, 'fraction_numerical': 0.005886681383370125, 'mean_word_length': 4.991189427312776, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 2, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
The patient's and the therapist's evaluation of bridges of different materials and age.

The aim of this study was to find out patients' satisfaction with their bridges made of different materials (metal-ceramics, Au/resin, Ag-Pd/resin). One hundred and sixty four patients were examined at the Dental School, University of Zagreb, Croatia. They assessed their bridges--the overall quality, aesthetics, speech, chewing and the health of the gingiva by the scale from 1-5. The same categories were also assessed by a trained prosthodontist. The majority of the patients was really satisfied and gave the highest grades (quality, aesthetics, speech, etc.) and therefore the results were skewed and asymmetrical towards the biggest scores (biggest grades). The best gingival health was evaluated by the group of patients with ceramic crowns and bridges (p < 0.05) and the worst by the patients with Ag-Pd bridges. Speech was scored higher for the lateral than for the frontal bridges. Patients evaluated the health of the tissue surrounding their bridges, overall quality of fixed prosthodontic appliance and aesthetics with significantly higher scores than the prosthodontist (p < 0.01). The results point at a difference between the patient's and the therapist's evaluations and to the patient's insufficient care about the gingiva around the bridge abutments.