SUCCESSFUL treatment in the healing arts is not attributed exclusively to administering an appropriate remedy. Once there is person-to-person interaction, a certain degree of understanding must prevail. In the case of the dentist-patient relationship, the concept of success after treatment should be balanced when both parties have systematically analysed the result.

Discussing the dentist-patient relationship must begin with one singular but critical observation. There is an unfortunate tendency in the dental literature to assume that there is only one kind of dentist-patient relationship. Such a conceptualisation has limited the kinds of research carried out and compromised or limited the relevance of the findings which have been reported.

The fact is that there are three types of relationships which vary according to the relative amounts of responsibility required of the dentist and patient. The importance of being aware of these explains the doubts about whether there is any guarantee of dental work done by the dentist.

In one model, the dentist assumes complete responsibility for caring for the patient. In its most extreme form, the patient is incapable of reacting, that is, he or she is unconscious or in a coma, etc. The second type of relationship is that of the guidance cooperation model; the dentist gives advice, direction or instructions and the patient is expected to carry them out. This type of relationship is probably the most traditional and most familiar one. The third type of relationship is mutual participation. In this model, both dentist and patient share equally. The patient is expected to take responsibility for his welfare and promote his health. Only here can he engage in preventative and health-promoting behaviours or in adherence to prescribed regimens for controlling chronic disease.

Studies have described the “good patient” as obedient, conforming and willing to assume the role of the patient. According to researcher E.F. Borgotta, the degree to which the patient poses little risk of threat to the professional, and the extent to which he readily conforms, defines the patient in positive terms. In addition, individuals
characterised as “good patients” are described as agreeable, likeable, warm and attractive according to T.A.Wills writing in the psychological bulletin (1999).

The psychiatric and social work literature has demonstrated that the professional’s first impression of the patient in terms of the dimensions discussed above significantly affects the treatment outcome. Patients who are cooperative and behave well tend to get the better of the dentist. In fact, studies show that the professional image of the patient on the first visit is significantly related to treatment outcome.

The findings of Horning and Massagli (2001) indicate that as professionals become more specialised, there appears to be an increased emphasis on the negative characteristics of the patient and the tendency to label them as the negative persons who exaggerate small ailments and who are headstrong. It is conceivable that patients who challenge professional integrity tend to receive labels that place them outside of the professional’s area of expertise or define them as untreatable.

A survey done about a decade ago in the USA reported that for dentists, the ideal patient were females between 25-55, well-educated and at the upper end of the social scale. This aspect further proved the physical appearance dimension concerning treatment. Also, almost half the dentists surveyed had lost patients due to poor interpersonal relationships. On the other hand, patients believe that critical factors of a good dentist include his personality, ability to reduce fear and anxiety, and technical ability.