Methods: In this evaluation the AIDA 1.1 prototype was used to plan the treatment with fixed prostheses. The findings of 100 patients intended to be treated with fixed prostheses were transfered to the program using the abbreviations of the finding scheme of the patient records. The AIDA produced treatment solutions were examinated regarding their plausability and compared to the real plannings.
Results: In 100 patients 124 real planed fixed prostheses have been used to compare with the AIDA plannings. 26 (21%) of this real plannings have been proved to be correct by further informations in the patient records. 98 (79%) have been proved to be correct using the finding scheme only. 15 of this plannnings (15%) were equivalent to the AIDA plannings. 83 (85%) of the real plannings were not identical to the AIDA plannings. 162 (68%) of the 267 treatment alternatives produced by AIDA have been empathizable using finding scheme, 75 (32%) have been incorrect. Not exactly defined finding abbreviations and in AIDA missed rules of planning were identified as the main reasons of failures.
Conclusion: The support of the systematic treatment planning by the computer program AIDA improves the planning methodology. In the meantime the quality of the AIDA planning has been enhanced by creating of new finding abbreviations for the finding scheme and corrections of the computer program.