Oral health-related quality of life in implant-supported rehabilitations: a prospective single-center observational cohort study.

BACKGROUND: Oral Health-Related Quality of Life (OHRQoL) is a comprehensive concept covering daily comfort, self-esteem, and satisfaction with oral health, including functional, psychological, and social aspects, as well as pain experiences. Despite abundant research on OHRQoL related to oral diseases and hygiene, there is limited data on how patients perceive changes after implant-prosthetic rehabilitation. This study aimed to evaluate OHRQoL and aesthetic perception using OHIP-14 and VAS scales respectively, before (baseline-TB), during (provisional prostheses-TP), and after (definitive prostheses-TD) implant-prosthetic rehabilitation. It also explored the impact of biological sex, substitution numbers, and aesthetic interventions on OHRQoL and VAS scores, along with changes in OHIP-14 domains. METHODS: A longitudinal prospective single-center observational cohort study was conducted with patients requiring implant-prosthetic rehabilitation. Quality of life relating to dental implants was assessed through the Italian version of Oral Health Impact Profile-14 (IOHIP-14), which has a summary score from 14 to 70. Patients' perceived aesthetic was analyzed through a VAS scale from 0 to 100. Generalized Linear Mixed Effect Models, Linear Mixed Effect Models, and Friedman test analyzed patient responses. RESULTS: 99 patients (35 males, 64 females) aged 61-74, receiving various prosthetic interventions, were enrolled. Both provisional and definitive prosthetic interventions significantly decreased the odds of a worse quality of life compared to baseline, with odds ratios of 0.04 and 0.01 respectively. VAS scores increased significantly after both interventions, with estimated increases of 30.44 and 51.97 points respectively. Patient-level variability was notable, with an Intraclass Correlation Coefficient (ICC) of 0.43. While biological sex, substitution numbers, and aesthetic interventions didn't significantly affect VAS scores, OHRQoL domains showed significant changes post-intervention. CONCLUSIONS: These findings support the effectiveness of implant-prosthetic interventions in improving the quality of life and perceived aesthetics of patients undergoing oral rehabilitation. They have important implications for clinical practice, highlighting the importance of individualized treatment approaches to optimize patient outcomes and satisfaction in oral health care.

Maxillary Implant-Supported Overdentures: Mechanical Behavior Comparing Individual Axial and Bar Retention Systems. A Cohort Study of Edentulous Patients.

Background and objectives: To compare the medium- to long-term mechanical behavior of overdentures with two different retention systems: overdentures with Locator® axial retention, and vertical insertion overdentures with bar retention, used to rehabilitate edentulous maxillar. Material and Methods: This prospective study assessed patients presenting complete maxillary edentulism, rehabilitated by means of implant-supported overdentures (n = 20), 10 with Locator® axial retention (ODA group) and 10 with overdentures on bars (ODB group). Patients also completed a questionnaire to determine their satisfaction with treatment. Results: The mean follow-up time in both groups was 11.4 years, with follow-up times in both groups ranging from 5 to 14 years. The ODA group suffered mechanical complications such as retention loss, need for nylon retention insert changes, resin fracture, and need for relining. In the ODB group, prosthetic dental wear, screw loosening, and complete prosthetic failure were more common. A total of 19 implants failed (23.8%); of these, 11 were in the ODA group (failure rate = 27.5%) and eight in the ODB group (failure rate = 20%). The patient satisfaction questionnaire obtained a mean score of 7.9 out of 10 in the ODA group, and 9.75 in the ODB group. Conclusions: in rehabilitations of edentulous maxillar by means of implant-supported overdentures, both the systems assessed were shown to be effective in the medium to long term. Patients expressed a high level of satisfaction with the treatments received.

Patient satisfaction versus retention of implant overdentures with two attachment systems: A randomized trial.

BACKGROUND: Clinical success with mandibular implant overdentures is highly dependent on a reliable attachment system connecting prosthesis and implants. PURPOSE: To compare the levels of retention and patient-based outcomes on implant overdentures retained/supported by cylindrical (LA) and ball (RA) attachment systems overtime and investigate their relationship. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Attachment retention (Newtons), and patient satisfaction with the treatment, prosthesis stability, and ability to chew (VAS, 100 mm) were assessed in a crossover trial for both attachment systems at baseline, 1 week, 3, 6, and 12 months and compared to preintervention values. Patients' preference was also recorded. RESULTS: Mean retention of worn attachments and patient satisfaction with denture retention assessed in the preintervention phase were 3.2 N (SD 4.9) and 23.5 mm (IQR 6.5-65.5), respectively. Overall mean retention along the study was higher for RA than LA (difference of 5.0 N, 95%CI: 2.5-7.6; P = 0.0005), declining significantly overtime (P < 0.0001), more steeply for the cylindrical attachment. Differences in VAS ratings between attachments were nonsignificant in the crossover phase (P > 0.05), but general satisfaction, satisfaction with retention, and comfort were significantly higher when compared with preintervention scores (P < 0.05). Ratings of retention decreased significantly overtime for both systems and earlier for LA than RA. Satisfaction was lower when retention was either too low or too high, although there was large variation in this association. At the end of the study, all participants chose to remain with the attachment system that they had received last. CONCLUSIONS: Attachment selection should be based on patients' individual characteristics and expectations as satisfaction with the attachment retention and denture stability vary largely among patients.

Patient-reported outcome measures of edentulous patients restored with implant-supported removable and fixed prostheses: A systematic review.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this systematic review was to compare patient-reported outcomes measures (PROMs) of implant-supported fixed complete dentures (IFCDs) and overdentures (IODs). MATERIAL AND METHODS: PubMed, Cochrane Library, EMBASE, Scopus and Web of Science were searched, complemented by manual search. Studies published in English up to November 2016 comparing removable with fixed implant-supported prosthesis on fully edentulous patients were included. The review focused on impact on patients' oral health-related quality of life (OHRQoL), satisfaction or other patient-reported outcomes measures. RESULTS: Of 1,563 initially screened articles, 13 studies including 8 prospective and 5 retrospective studies fulfilled the inclusion criteria. OHRQoL and patient satisfaction were the most common PROMs. When evaluating the levels of evidence, five of thirteen studies were graded as level III and seven reached level II. The only randomized control trial was rated as Ib. The methods used to evaluate PROMs were heterogeneous among studies, and there was a lack of standardization in the measurements employed. In general, IFCD and IOD showed no significant differences when compared for PROMs, with a slight trend of IFCD being superior to IOD in most included studies. However, conflicting results were observed in many aspects such as chewing function, phonetics-related function, overall satisfaction and aesthetics. CONCLUSIONS: Inconsistent results were observed in PROMs when comparing IFCD and IOD for fully edentulous patients. A guideline for standardizing the assessment of PROMs in clinical research is needed in order to produce more meaningful evidence-based information.

Immediate loading vs. early/conventional loading of immediately placed implants in partially edentulous patients from the patients' perspective: A systematic review.

OBJECTIVES: This systematic review aimed at answering the following PICO question: In patients receiving immediate (Type 1) implant placement, how does immediate compare to early or conventional loading in terms of Patient-Reported Outcome Measures (PROMs)? MATERIAL AND METHODS: Following search strategy development, the OVID, PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews databases were search for the relevant literature. All levels of evidence including randomized controlled trials, prospective and retrospective cohort studies, and case series of at least five patients were considered for possible inclusion. An additional manual search was performed by screening the reference lists of relevant studies and systematic reviews published up to May 2017. The intervention considered was the placement of immediate implant. Study selection and data extraction were performed independently by two reviewers. RESULTS: The search yielded a list of 1,102 references, of which nine were included in this systematic review. The limited number of studies included and the heterogeneity of the data identified prevented the performance of a meta-analysis. Three studies, one of which was a randomized controlled trial, allowed the extraction of comparative data specific to the aim of the present systematic review. The remaining studies allowed only data extraction for one single treatment modality and were viewed as single cohort studies. Overall, irrespective of the PROMs chosen, patients' satisfaction was overall high with little difference between the two loading protocols. Moreover, studies indicated a positive impact on oral health-related quality of life following immediate implant placement and loading. CONCLUSIONS: Within the limitations of the present systematic review, immediate implant placement and loading in single tooth edentulous space seems to be a well-accepted treatment modality from the patients' perspective and is worthy of consideration in clinical practice. However, the paucity of comparative data limits any definitive conclusions as to which loading protocol; immediate or early/conventional, should be given preference based on PROMs.

Effect of implant therapy on oral health-related quality of life (OHIP-49), health status (SF-36), and satisfaction of patients with several agenetic teeth: Prospective cohort study.

BACKGROUND: Effect of fixed prosthodontics on patients with several agenetic teeth is not well understood. PURPOSE: To assess the effect of implant-based fixed prosthodontics on oral health-related quality of life (OHRQoL), general health status, and satisfaction regarding dental appearance, ability to chew and speech in patients with several agenetic teeth. MATERIALS AND METHODS: For this prospective cohort study, all patients (≥18 years) with several agenetic teeth who were scheduled for treatment with fixed dental implants between September 2013 and July 2015 at our department were approached. Participants received a set of questionnaires before and 1 year after implant placement to assess OHRQoL (OHIP-NL49), general health status (SF-36), and satisfaction regarding dental appearance, ability to chew and speech. RESULTS: About 25 out of 31 eligible patients (10 male, 15 female; median age: 20 [19;23] years; agenetic teeth: 7 [5;10]) were willing to participate. Pre- and post-treatment OHIP-NL49 sum-scores were 38 [28;56] and 17 [7;29], respectively (P < .001). Scores of all OHIP-NL49 subdomains decreased tool, representing an improved OHRQoL (P < .05) as well as that satisfaction regarding dental appearance, ability to chew and speech increased (P < .001). General health status did not change with implant treatment (P > .05). CONCLUSIONS: Treatment with implant-based fixed prosthodontics improves OHRQoL and satisfaction with dental appearance, ability to chew and speech, while not affecting general health status.

Quality of life assessment of patients utilizing orbital implant-supported prostheses.

STATEMENT OF PROBLEM: Evaluate the effect of orbital prosthesis retained by implants through a specific quality of life (QOL) questionnaire provides important information on patients QOL, great incentive for the multidisciplinary team and public health support to continue work in this area. PURPOSE: The objective of the study was to evaluate patient satisfaction with orbital implant-supported prostheses using an adapted quality of life questionnaire. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Forty five patients using orbital implant-supported prostheses for a period ranging from six to 120 months. The subjects answered a questionnaire that consisted of 10 questions covering appearance, retention, conspicuousness, self-confidence, difficulty of placement, difficulty of removal, cleaning, limitation of activities, discomfort of tissues, and recommendation of the method to other patients. Answers were expressed using a visual 100-mm scale. The arithmetic mean of the responses was converted into a percentage to represent the satisfaction index. RESULTS: Patients demonstrated a high level of satisfaction on all items, with the lowest rate being for aesthetics and the highest being for recommending the method to other patients. High satisfaction rates regarding the placement and removal of the prosthesis, discomfort to the tissues, and cleaning suggest the ease of handling of the prosthesis. High satisfaction with retention, self-confidence, conspicuousness of the prosthesis, and limitation of activities indicated an association with a better social life. CONCLUSIONS: The results showed that use of bone anchorage technique of extraoral prostheses provided a high level of satisfaction among patients, confirming that osseointegrated implants are a very important resource for the rehabilitation of orbital deformities.

Long-term implant performance and patients' satisfaction in oligodontia.

OBJECTIVES: To assess long-term (≥10 years) implant survival, peri-implant health, patients' satisfaction and oral health related quality of life (OHQoL) in oligodontia patients rehabilitated with implant-based fixed prosthodontics. METHODS: All oligodontia patients treated ≥10 years previously with implant-based fixed prosthodontics at the University Medical Center Groningen, The Netherlands, were approached to participate. Clinical (plaque index, bleeding index, pocket probing depth) and radiographic (marginal bone level) data were collected between February and May 2016. Surgical implant details (e.g., bone augmentation) and implant loss were recalled from the medical records. Patients completed a satisfaction questionnaire (maximum score 10, high score favourable satisfaction) and the Oral Health Impact Profile (OHIP-NL49, maximum score 196, low score favourable satisfaction) to rate OHQoL. Implant survival was expressed according to Kaplan Meier. The Mann-Whitney U Test was used for the other analyses. RESULTS: Forty-one patients had been treated with implant-based fixed prosthodontics (n = 258) ≥10 years previously. Cumulative 10-year implant survival of these 41 patients was 89.1% (95%CI 85.2-93.0%). Twenty-eight of them (n = 163 implants) were willing to visit us for additional clinical and radiographic assessments. In these 28 patients, highest peri-implant bone loss was observed for implants placed in augmented bone (p < 0.001). Peri-implant mucositis (65.4%) and peri-implantitis (16.1%) were rather common. Patients' satisfaction (8.3 ±â€¯1.5) and OHIP-NL49 scores (32.6 ±â€¯30.1) were favourable and not associated with number of agenetic teeth (≤10 versus >10). CONCLUSIONS: Long-term survival, satisfaction and OHQoL results reveal that implant treatment is a predictable and satisfactory treatment modality for oligodontia, although peri-implant mucositis and peri-implantitis are common. CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE: This study showed unique long-term (≥10 years) results about implant survival, peri-implant health, patients' satisfaction and OHQoL in oligodontia patients rehabilitated with implant-based fixed prosthodontics.

Provision of information on dental implant treatment: Patients' thoughts and experiences.

OBJECTIVES: To explore patients' thoughts and perceptions of information provision regarding dental implant treatment. METHODS: This generic qualitative study involved 38 semi-structured face-to-face and telephone interviews with 34 participants, who were at different stages of dental implant treatment. The interviews were transcribed verbatim. The data collection and coding process followed the principles of qualitative thematic analysis. RESULTS: Clinical sources of information were generally trusted by patients; however, patients clearly lacked information relative to their own specific situation, concerns and preferences, and this may lead to patients' reliance on other general sources of information. Crucial information on the long-term prosthesis needs was requested by patients at all treatment stages. Issues concerning the longevity and functional capability of the implant restoration and the long-term maintenance including optimisation of hygiene practice were questioned by patients and required greater explanation. CONCLUSION: With growing patient interest in implants for replacement of missing teeth, complete and accurate knowledge and understanding of implants should be established with patients. This should be undertaken with more reliance on reliable clinically based sources of implant information.

Oral health-related quality of life in subjects with implant-supported prostheses: A systematic review.

OBJECTIVES: The aim of the present study was to review the current literature relating to the impact of dental implants on oral health-related quality of life (OHRQoL) in edentulous or partially dentate patients. DATA/SOURCES: Systematic literature searches were performed in the PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane Library databases, using high level MeSH terms. The searches were limited to studies published in English from 1960 to June 11, 2017, reporting OHRQoL outcomes using validated instruments, and having enrolled at least 50 patients. STUDY SELECTION: After removal of duplicates, a total of 2827 unique hits were identified. After title, abstract, and full text screening, 63 articles were included in the review presenting findings of 55 individual studies. The provision of implant-supported dentures was associated with a significant increase in OHRQoL in partially dentate and in edentulous patients, with the magnitude of achieved improvement typically being greater for implant-supported dentures than with conventional ones. Furthermore, OHRQoL impairment prior to treatment was strongly associated with OHRQoL improvement. CONCLUSION: For partially dentate patients, there is not enough evidence that implant-supported FDP are superior in terms of OHRQoL than conventional FDP, but moderate evidence suggests that implant-supported FDP perform better than conventional RDP. In edentulous patients, evidence suggests that only if OHRQoL at baseline is highly impaired and patients request implant treatment, IOD are superior than CD in terms of treatment-induced OHRQoL improvement. CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE: Patients can be informed that implant treatment is usually related to a significant improvement in OHRQoL. However, improvement is not necessarily higher than for conventional prosthodontic treatments but depends on patient's clinical and psychosocial characteristics.

Location of implant-retained fixed dentures affects oral health-related quality of life.

BACKGROUND: The effects of the locations of dental implants on treatment outcomes, as evaluated by oral health-related quality of life (OHRQoL) assessment, remain controversial. PURPOSE: To investigate the association between the locations of dental implants and changes in OHRQoL. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Sixty-eight subjects received implant treatment in the anterior or posterior region and completed the Oral Health Impact Profile (OHIP) questionnaire before and after treatment. Change in OHIP summary scores and the 4 dimension scores were calculated to evaluate the effects of implant treatment on OHRQoL. RESULTS: The mean Oro-facial Appearance score for the anterior group was significantly higher than that for the posterior group (10.4 ± 5.1 and 7.2 ± 3.8, respectively; P ＝ .005; Effect size = 0.63) at baseline. All questionnaire scores were significantly improved following implant treatment in both groups, and no significant group differences were observed at follow-up. Regression analysis revealed a significant association between the locations of most anterior implants and changes in the Oro-facial Appearance score (adjusted R2 = 0.073; P = .015). CONCLUSION: Our results suggest that the locations of dental implants influence OHRQoL impairments and improvements after treatment. This information might be useful in clinical decision-making.

Patients' Awareness toward Implant-supported Prosthesis: An Observational Study.

INTRODUCTION: Implant-supported prosthesis has high predictability and success and improves quality of life. This study aims at assessing awareness among the patients regarding implant-supported prosthesis. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A cross-sectional study was conducted among 391 study participants. A structured questionnaire was distributed to assess implant-related awareness among the study participants. The questionnaires were analyzed for the responses. RESULTS: Among the 391 respondents, 37.5% of the respondents reported having moderate knowledge regarding the tooth replacement options. Nearly 50% considered implants as a viable treatment option. The majority of them enlisted the dentist as the major source of information regarding implants, and media had a share of about 7.03% only. High cost was a major barrier in selecting implants as a treatment option. CONCLUSION: This survey showed that awareness among people was low regarding the dental implants. Efforts need to be directed to increase the awareness levels by utilizing media as a tool to achieve the target. CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE: A patient who is aware of the advantages of the implant-supported dentures will make an informed decision for better functional stability and retention of the denture, especially in the mandibular arch.

Comparison of Rehabilitating Missing Mandibular First Molars with Implant- or Tooth-Supported Prostheses Using Masticatory Efficiency and Patient Satisfaction Outcomes.

PURPOSE: To determine whether a fixed partial denture (FPD) or an implant replacement of a single missing tooth leads to better masticatory efficiency and patient satisfaction. MATERIALS AND METHODS: One-hundred and twenty participants with missing mandibular right first molars were selected on the basis of predefined inclusion and exclusion criteria. After obtaining informed consent, 60 participants were randomized to the teeth-supported (FPD) group and 60 to the implant placement group (IMP). The study was divided into the following parts: (i) Completion of a Likert scale satisfaction questionnaire (postrehabilitation) by the participants. (ii) Evaluation of masticatory efficiency and performance 3 months after rehabilitation. Data were evaluated by applying t-test and z-test using statistical analysis (α ˂ 0.05). RESULTS: Masticatory efficiency of participants in the IMP and FPD groups was 74.95 ± 0.90% and 74.41 ± 3.35%, respectively (p = 0.607). Total satisfaction questionnaire scores for the two groups were also not significantly different; however, the mean scores of overall satisfaction and function categories in this questionnaire were significantly higher for the IMP group, while the mean score for the duration of treatment question was higher for the FPD group (p < 0.05). CONCLUSION: The results of this study suggested that although masticatory performance and efficiency were not statistically different for single teeth replaced with implants or FPDs, patients perceived higher satisfaction with implant restorations; they also preferred the shorter treatment times for rehabilitation in the FPD group.

Patients' perceptions of implant placement surgery, the post-surgical healing and the transitional implant prostheses: a qualitative study.

OBJECTIVES: This study aimed to explore patients' thoughts, feelings about, and experiences of, implant placement surgery (IPS), the post-surgical healing stage and the immediate post-surgical transitional implant prosthesis (TIP) (fixed and removable). METHODS: A qualitative study design was chosen and 38 semi-structured telephone and face-to-face interviews were conducted with 34 patients at different stages of implant treatment. The interviews were transcribed verbatim; the data collection and coding process followed the principles of thematic analysis, which was facilitated through the use of NVivo10. RESULTS: Patients anticipated that surgery would be painful and unpleasant but were prepared to accept this temporary discomfort for the expected benefits of implant treatment. However, a key finding was that patients felt they had overestimated the trauma of surgery but underestimated the discomfort and difficulties of the healing phase. A number of difficulties were also identified with the TIP phase following implant surgery. CONCLUSION: Existing research has tended to focus on the longer term benefits of dental implant treatment. This qualitative study has investigated in-depth patients' perceptions of dental implant surgery, including their experiences related to sedation, and of transitional implant restoration. While patients felt their concerns were overestimated in relation to the implant surgery, they experienced greater morbidity than they expected in the healing phase. Recommendations are made for relatively small changes in care provision which might improve the overall patient experience. Partial dentate patients treated with a fixed transitional prosthesis experienced advantages more quickly than patients with an overdenture.

Patient-based outcomes following surgical implant placements.

OBJECTIVES: To assess the postoperative oral health-related quality of life (OHRQoL), pain and swelling after surgical implant placement and to investigate their association with socio-demographic and clinical variables. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A total of 85 partial edentulous patients requiring implant-supported fixed prostheses were enrolled. Standard surgical practice for implant placement was employed. Interviews were conducted to assess the OHRQoL based on the oral impact on daily performances (OIDP) index preoperatively as well as 2 weeks and 1 month postoperatively in addition to the degree of pain and swelling at 2 weeks postoperatively. The socio-demographic and clinical variables of interest were also assessed. RESULTS: Patient's OHRQoL was reduced at 2 weeks followed by a return to baseline levels 1 month postoperatively. The median OIDP scores were 5.0, 12.0 and 3.5 preoperatively, 2 weeks and 1 month postoperatively, respectively. Eating and teeth cleaning were affected after surgery. Overall, 50.6% of the patients perceived no to mild pain, whereas 36.5%, 49.4% and 14.1% reported no, localized or extensive facial swelling, respectively. No association was found between pain and any variable, but anterior implantation and bone augmentation were more commonly associated with facial swelling. Oral health-related quality of life worsened in patients with more pain or facial swelling as well as in cases involving multiple implant placement or bone augmentation procedures. CONCLUSIONS: Oral health-related quality of life deteriorated shortly after surgery based on eating and teeth cleaning difficulties. A high degree of pain, extensive swelling, multiple implant placement and bone augmentation procedures were all associated with oral impacts.

Patient-centered and clinical outcomes of mandibular overdentures retained with the locator system: A prospective observational study.

STATEMENT OF PROBLEM: Whether clinical or demographic variables affect the perception of treatment in terms of quality of life and satisfaction is unknown. PURPOSE: The purpose of this prospective study was to make an evidence-based assessment of the treatment outcomes (patient- and clinically based) of locator-retained mandibular overdentures. MATERIAL AND METHODS: This prospective observational study assessed patients with edentulism who had worn mandibular overdentures supported by 2 implants and retained by the locator system for at least 1 year of functional life (N=80). Medical histories were reviewed, and patients underwent oral examinations. Prosthetic clinical outcomes and patient well-being were registered using the Oral Health Impact Profile 20 (OHIP-20) and Oral Satisfaction Scale (OSS). RESULTS: Patient well-being scored an overall OHIP-20 score of 19.0 ±14.0 of 80 (the higher the score, the greater the impact and the worse the oral health-related quality of life); overall oral satisfaction was 8.3 ±1.7 of 10. Women suffered greater social impact (0.8 ±1.0) and disability (0.4 ±0.8) than men (0.4 ±0.7 versus 0.2 ±0.4, respectively). Impact on well-being was inversely proportional to both patient age and the age of the prosthesis (r=-0.25; P<.01). Implants had been placed on average 73.6 ±39.2 months previously, showing a survival rate of 82.5%. Most of the overdentures had been functioning for over 60 months. Relining (46.3%), readjustments (82.5%), and changes of nylon retention (1.5 ±1.8 per patient over 60 months of use) devices negatively influenced well-being. CONCLUSIONS: Mandibular overdentures produced good results with regard to quality of life and oral satisfaction, but attention should be paid to factors affecting clinical outcomes and patient well-being.

Assessment of Satisfaction Level of Edentulous Patients Rehabilitated with Implant-Supported Prostheses.

PURPOSE: Edentulism usually leads to esthetic, functional, and emotional discomfort resulting in a loss of self-esteem and a decrease of the patient's quality of life. Dental implants provide new possibilities to ensure the comfort and efficacy of prosthetic rehabilitation. The aim of this study was to evaluate the satisfaction level of patients rehabilitated using the Brånemark protocol or overdenture implant-supported prostheses. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Fifty-two patients were rehabilitated using the Brånemark protocol and 23 using overdenture prostheses. Then, an adapted oral health-related quality of life questionnaire was administered in addition to a clinical exam to determine the condition of the dental implants and prostheses. The results for treatment expectation, understanding of the type of treatment, phonetic function, chewing comfort, pain, and self-esteem improvement were analyzed with Fisher exact test (P ≤ .05). RESULTS: Both treatments presented satisfaction of above 87%, with no statistical difference between them. Eighty-two percent of patients treated with overdenture prostheses and 80.8% of those treated with the Brånemark protocol had no complaint of pain (P = .087). CONCLUSION: The treatments analyzed in this study were highly satisfactory with regard to functional and esthetic factors, resulting in an increase in self-esteem and quality of life. The psychological factor is a complex variable in patient satisfaction that directly influences quality of life. Considering the desires of patients in choosing the type of prosthesis is critical to treatment success.

Implant supported dental rehabilitation following segmental mandibular reconstruction- quality of life outcomes of a prospective randomized trial.

PURPOSE: The primary objective of this study was to assess the difference in quality of life (QoL) in patients with dental rehabilitation using two or four implant-supported overdentures following segmental mandibulectomy defect reconstruction with fibula free flap. MATERIAL AND METHODS: This prospective, parallel designed, randomized clinical study was conducted with a 1:1 ratio. At baseline, all participants already had fibula flap reconstruction for segmental defects of the mandible and rehabilitation with conventional (non-implant supported) removable partial dentures. The participants were then randomized into two groups. Group I received implant supported overdentures on two implants, and Group II received four implants. QoL outcomes were evaluated using standardized questionnaires (EORTC_QLQ c30, H&N35, OHIP, DSI). Outcomes of treatment were evaluated at 6 months (T1) and 1 year (T2) following rehabilitation. RESULTS: A total of 52 patients were randomized into two treatment groups (26 each). After accounting for the loss to lack of follow-up, 22 patients in Group I and 24 patients in Group II were evaluated for QoL at the end of the study. There was a significant improvement in QoL with implant-assisted dental rehabilitation. However there were no significant differences in QoL between the two-implant and four-implant groups. CONCLUSION: Implant-supported removable overdentures improve QoL outcomes in patients with reconstructed mandibles. This study showed no significant difference in QoL outcomes in patients with two- or four-implant supported removable prostheses.

Dental implant treatment following trauma: An investigation into the failure to complete Accident Compensation Corporation funded care.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Among other restorative strategies, the Accident Compensation Corporation (ACC) provides benefits for dental implant treatment to replace teeth lost as a result of trauma. While ACC has funded over 15,000 dental implants since 2002, the outcomes of this treatment and patient perceptions of this treatment have not been investigated. The aim of this study was to investigate the perceptions of the dental implant treatment outcomes and reasons for failure to complete restorative treatment in patients who had undergone trauma-related implant surgery funded by ACC between February 2006 and September 2009, but had not completed the prosthetic component of the treatment. METHODS: A randomly selected sample of 399 patients, who had undergone dental implant surgery but not completed the crown restoration, was identified from the ACC database. These individuals were contacted by mail for expressions of interest and 181 clients were interviewed by telephone. Responses to open-ended questions were entered into an Excel spreadsheet and analysed using a general inductive technique. RESULTS: A common emergent theme was the high level of satisfaction expressed by participants with the implant process, however just under half of those responding felt they had been pushed into having implants and were given the impression that this was the only treatment ACC paid for. The cost of the prosthetic phase of the treatment and surgical complications were identified as the primary reasons why participants failed to complete the restorative phase of treatment, after completing the surgical phase. CONCLUSIONS: The results highlighted the need to better inform patients of their treatment options and to allow time for them to process this information before progressing with care. A patient decision tool may help to give greater ownership of the treatment options. Newly implemented protocols to assist dentists to better assess treatment needs may also assist in achieving improvements in perceived treatment outcomes for patients.

Patient satisfaction 8-14 years after dental implant therapy - a questionnaire study.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this questionnaire study was to investigate patient satisfaction 8-14 years after dental implant therapy and complications influencing the degree of satisfaction. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A questionnaire was sent by post to 587 patients at a specialist clinic of periodontology. The questionnaire consisted of 19 statements or questions such as the degree of satisfaction with the implants and knowledge of complications. In nine of the questions, respondents were asked to grade the extent of their agreement with a statement by selecting from fixed answers. Three of the questions were designed to be answered using a visual analog scale. RESULTS: In total, 400 individuals (81%) responded to the questionnaire. The mean time elapsed since implant installation was 10 years. A great majority (81%) experienced a high chewing comfort and was satisfied or sufficiently satisfied (94%) with the aesthetic aspects of their implant restorations, while 32% of the individuals had experienced problems with their implant reconstructions. The disadvantage that patients remarked on was the cost of the treatment. Those who had experienced problems with their implant reconstructions were also less satisfied with the treatment. CONCLUSION: A great majority of the patients expressed a high degree of satisfaction with their dental implants 8-14 years after the treatment. Patients were less satisfied if they had experience of problems with their implant reconstructions and in cases when the clinicians were unable to resolve their complications.