'Role of the modulating factors on the self-perceived OHRQoL of fully dentate subjects and wearers of screw-retained and cement-retained implant-supported FPDs: A cross-sectional study'.

OBJECTIVES: This research aimed to compare the oral health-related quality of life (OHRQoL) between fully dentate subjects and edentulous patients wearing implant-supported fixed partial dentures (i-FPDs). The clinical conditions of both types of restorations were evaluated. METHODS: Participants were assigned to: Group-1 (SR, n = 50): screw-retained i-FPD wearers; Group-2 (CR, n = 50): cement-retained i-FPD wearers; and Group-3 (ND, n = 50): dentate subjects with a healthy natural dentition (controls). Patients answered the OHIP-14sp and QoLIP-10 questionnaires. Data related to sociodemographics, prosthesis features, peri­implant status, complications, and subjective evaluations, were compiled. Potential modulators of the OHRQoL and the i-FPDs' clinical conditions were assessed using non-parametric tests (α= 0.05). RESULTS: ND individuals were the least satisfied (OHIP-14sp; p< 0.001). Both prosthodontic groups reported similar levels of wellbeing, excluding the speaking difficulties, which were lower for SR wearers as shown by both scales (p = 0.001). The most discontented patients (OHIP-14sp) were: women (p = 0.022), under 65 years (p = 0.03), without partner (p< 0.001) and having a crown (p = 0.033). The level of education/schooling also affected the OHIP-14sp scores (p< 0.001). Implant mobility and peri­implantitis were more frequent among CR wearers (p-values= 0.008 and 0.05, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: The OHRQoL of both prosthodontic groups was comparably higher than that of the dentate subjects, who were the most nonconformist. The self-perceived satisfaction was mainly modulated by sociodemographic factors. CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE: Overall, the retention system did not impact the OHRQoL, prosthetic problems, and subjective evaluations of i-FPD wearers. However, the cementation may increase the risk of peri­implant diseases.

Differences in self-perceived OHRQoL between fully dentate subjects and edentulous patients depending on their prosthesis type, socio-demographic profile, and clinical features.

OBJECTIVES: This observational cross-sectional study aimed to evaluate and compare the oral health-related quality of life (OHRQoL) and clinical performance between dentate subjects and edentulous patients restored with conventional dentures or implant overdentures. METHODS: 85 edentulous patients were grouped as follows: Group-1 (CD): conventional denture wearers (n = 42), and Group-2 (IO): implant-retained overdenture wearers (n = 43). For the OHRQoL comparisons, a control group of subjects with a healthy natural dentition (Group-3, ND; n = 50) was included. Participants completed three validated questionnaires (OHIP-14sp, OHIP-20sp, and QoLIP-10). Socio-demographic data, prosthesis-related factors, clinical condition of the mouth, and patient subjective evaluations, were gathered. Descriptive and non-parametric probes were run (α = 0.05). RESULTS: The ND group was the most unsatisfied (OHIP-14sp; p ≤ 0.001). The OHIP-20sp attributed significantly worse Psychological disability (p = 0.029) and Handicap (p = 0.027) to CD wearers when compared to IO wearers. The CD group showed the significantly highest need for relining (p = 0.041), and the lowest retention (p = 0.011). The OHIP-14sp disclosed a significantly worse OHRQoL for those volunteers who had a job (p = 0.003), a basic education instead of a secondary one (p = 0.022), and no partner (p = 0.006). CONCLUSIONS: The overall OHRQoL was comparable for both prosthodontic groups, being modulated by socio-demographic and prosthesis-related features. Nonetheless, CD wearers presented prosthetic complications more frequently. CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE: While dentate subjects were the most critical about their oral condition and its repercussion in their life, implant overdenture wearers tended to observe a better OHRQoL and clinical performance compared to conventional denture wearers.

Validation of the 'Quality of Life with Implant Prostheses (QoLIP-10)' questionnaire for wearers of cement-retained implant-supported restorations.

OBJECTIVES: To validate the 'Quality of Life with Implant-Prostheses (QoLIP-10)' questionnaire for assessing the impact of cemented implant prostheses on Oral Health-Related Quality of Life (OHRQoL). METHODS: 84 subjects wearing implant restorations were distributed as follows: Group 1 (SD-I; n=35): screwed FDPs (fixed dental prostheses) supported by 2 implants; Group 2 (SD-II; n=7): screwed FDPs supported by 3-5 implants; Group 3 (CD-I; n=36): cemented FDPs supported by 2 implants; and Group 4 (CD-II; n=6): cemented FDPs supported by 3-5 implants. The QoLIP-10 and the Oral Health Impact Profile (OHIP-14sp) scales were used. Data related to global oral satisfaction, socio-demographics, health-behaviors, and prostheses, were gathered. Reliability and validity of the QoLIP-10 were investigated. Correlations between both indices were explored with the Spearman's rank test. Descriptive and non-parametric probes were run to evaluate the effect of the study variables on the OHRQoL (α=0.05). RESULTS: The QoLIP-10 confirmed its psychometric capacity for cemented implant prosthesis wearers. Both tests were inversely correlated. The QoLIP-10 attributed the significantly worst QoL to long-span cemented prostheses. Groups were significantly discriminated by the QoLIP-10 performance dimension. The variable complaints about the mouth and the three global oral satisfaction measures significantly modulated the OHRQoL. CONCLUSIONS: Patient satisfaction depends upon the extension and the type of retention of implant FDPs. CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE: The QoLIP-10 may help estimating the effect of cemented FDPs on patients' well-being. When compared to screwed FDPs, short cemented implant restorations lead to greater improvements in patients' self-perceived QoL.

Impact of various screwed implant prostheses on oral health-related quality of life as measured with the QoLIP-10 and OHIP-14 scales: a cross-sectional study.

OBJECTIVES: This study aimed to validate the Quality of Life with Implant-Prostheses (QoLIP-10) questionnaire for assessing the impact of screwed implant-supported rehabilitations on oral health-related quality of life (OHRQoL). METHODS: 131 patients wearing screw-retained implant restorations were assigned to the following groups: Group 1 (HP; n=50): fixed-detachable hybrid prostheses (control), Group 2 (S-PD; n=43): metal-ceramic screwed partial dentures, and Group 3 (S-CD; n=38): metal-ceramic screwed complete dentures. Impacts on OHRQoL were evaluated using the QoLIP-10 and Oral Health Impact Profile (OHIP-14sp) scales. Data on global oral satisfaction, socio-demographics, health-behaviours, and prosthetics were gathered. Reliability and validity of the QoLIP-10 were investigated for screwed prosthesis wearers. The Spearman's rank test was applied to determine the correlation between both indices. Descriptive and non-parametric probes were run to evaluate the influence of the study variables on OHRQoL. RESULTS: The QoLIP-10 confirmed its psychometric capacity for screwed prosthesis wearers. Both tests were inversely correlated. HP wearers reported the worst dental-facial aesthetics, performance, and functional limitation outcomes. Gender, education level, complaints about the mouth, perception of treatment needs, and prosthetic status modulated the OHRQoL. CONCLUSIONS: Screwed implants restorations provide better OHRQoL than do fixed-detachable hybrid prostheses.

A new, short, specific questionnaire (QoLIP-10) for evaluating the oral health-related quality of life of implant-retained overdenture and hybrid prosthesis wearers.

OBJECTIVES: This study aimed to validate a new questionnaire for assessing the oral health-related quality of life (OHRQoL) of implant-prosthesis wearers. METHODS: A group of specialists designed the 10-item scale: 'Quality of Life with Implant-Prostheses' (QoLIP-10). After completing a pilot trial, 150 subjects wearing implant-prostheses or complete dentures who were not requesting dental treatment participated in the main investigation. They were divided into three groups (n=50 each) depending on the type of dental restoration. Group 1 (CD): complete denture wearers (control); Group 2 (IO): implant-retained overdenture wearers and Group 3 (HP): subjects with fixed implant hybrid prostheses. Participants answered the QoLIP-10 and the Oral Health Impact Profile (OHIP-20sp) questionnaires. Information on global oral satisfaction, socio-demographic, health-behavioural, clinical and prosthetic-related data were gathered. The psychometric characteristics of the QoLIP-10 were investigated. The Spearman's rank correlation test was used to determine the association between the total scores of the QoLIP-10 and OHIP-20sp. Descriptive and non-parametric probes were run to evaluate the impact scores obtained depending on the study variables. RESULTS: The QoLIP-10 scale is reliable and valid. The factor analysis confirmed the existence of three dimensions and meaningful inter-correlations among the 10 items. HP wearers demonstrated better biopsychosocial QoL, as indicated by their answers to Item 1 (oral pain) and Item 3 (chewing difficulty). CONCLUSIONS: The QoLIP-10 index confirmed its psychometric capacity for assessing the OHRQoL of implant overdenture and hybrid prosthesis wearers. Overall, the participants were satisfied with their mouth and implant-restorations. CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE: The QoLIP-10 may be recommended for determining the influence of implant-retained overdentures and hybrid prostheses on the well-being of future patients. Hybrid prostheses are the most predictable treatment option for improving patient satisfaction in terms of oral pain and chewing functionality when compared to implant overdentures and complete dentures.