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 related to function, aesthetics, socialization, and thoughts about health-behavioural habits (QoLFAST-10)" scale for wearers of implant-supported fixed partial dentures.

OBJECTIVES: To validate the 'Quality of Life related to function, aesthetics, socialization, and thoughts about health-behavioural habits (QoLFAST-10)' questionnaire for assessing the whole concept of oral health-related quality of life (OHRQoL) of implant-supported fixed partial denture (FPD) wearers. METHODS: 107 patients were assigned to: Group 1 (HP; n=37): fixed-detachable hybrid prostheses (control); Group 2 (C-PD, n=35): cemented partial dentures; and Group 3 (S-PD, n=35): screwed partial dentures. Patients answered the QoLFAST-10 and the Oral Health Impact Profile (OHIP-14sp) scales. Information on global oral satisfaction, socio-demographic, prosthetic, and clinical data was gathered. The psychometric capacity of the QoLFAST-10 was investigated. The correlations between both indices were explored by the Spearman's rank test. The effect of the study variables on the OHRQoL was evaluated by descriptive and non-parametric probes (α=0.05). RESULTS: The QoLFAST-10 was reliable and valid for implant-supported FPD wearers, who attained comparable results regardless of the connection system being cement or screws. Both fixed partial groups demonstrated significantly better social, functional, and total satisfaction than did HP wearers with this index. All groups revealed similar aesthetic-related well-being and consciousness about the importance of health-behavioural habits. Several study variables modulated the QoLFAST-10 scores. CONCLUSIONS: Hybrid prostheses represent the least predictable treatment option, while cemented and screwed FPDs supplied equal OHRQoL as estimated by the QoLFAST-10 scale. CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE: The selection of cemented or screwed FPDs should mainly rely on clinical factors, since no differences in patient satisfaction may be expected between both types of implant rehabilitations.

Validation of a new, specific, complete, and short OHRQoL scale (QoLFAST-10) for wearers of implant overdentures and fixed-detachable hybrid prostheses.

OBJECTIVES: To validate a new index for assessing the whole concept of oral health-related quality of life (OHRQoL) of implant-prosthesis wearers. METHODS: 113 patients who were not requesting dental treatment were assigned to: Group 1 (CD; n=38): complete denture users (control); Group 2 (IO; n=38): implant overdenture wearers; and Group 3 (HP; n=37): hybrid implant prosthesis users. Patients answered the newly-designed 'Quality of Life related to Function, Aesthetics, Socialization, and Thoughts about health-behavioural habits' (QoLFAST-10) and the Oral Health Impact Profile (OHIP-20sp) questionnaires. Information on global oral satisfaction, socio-demographic, clinical, and prosthetic-related data were gathered. The QoLFAST-10 was investigated for reliability and validity. The Spearman's test determined the correlations between both indices' scores. Descriptive and non-parametric probes were run to assess the influence of the study variables on the OHRQoL (α=0.05). RESULTS: The QoLFAST-10 confirmed its psychometric capacity. HP wearers reported significantly better global and functional satisfaction than did IO wearers. The latter revealed significantly less consciousness about the importance of health-behavioural habits than did CD and HP groups. The level of education, complaints about the mouth, and the global oral satisfaction measures significantly modulated the QoLFAST-10 scores. CONCLUSIONS: Implant overdentures supplied lower functional and global satisfaction than did hybrid prostheses, and represent the least predictable option concerning the maintenance of the restoration. CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE: The QoLFAST-10 may help in estimating the impact of implant restorations on patients' well-being. In this regard, hybrid prostheses seem to be the implant treatment of choice when compared with overdentures.

Oral aesthetic-related quality of life of muco-supported prosthesis and implant-retained overdenture wearers assessed by a new, short, specific scale (QoLDAS-9).

OBJECTIVES: To validate a new questionnaire for evaluating the 'Oral aesthetic-related quality of life (OARQoL)' of prosthetically restored patients. 'OARQoL' assesses the impact of the self-perceived dental aesthetics on patients' well-being. METHODS: The 'Quality of Life associated with Dental Aesthetic Satisfaction (QoLDAS)' index was designed. After a pilot trial, 70 patients were distributed into two groups depending on their type of prosthetic rehabilitation: Group 1 (CD; n=34): muco-supported complete dentures, and Group 2 (IO; n=36): implant-retained overdentures. Patients answered the QoLDAS and the Oral Health Impact Profile (OHIP-20sp) questionnaires, and reported their satisfaction on a visual analogue scale (VAS). Socio-demographic and prosthesis-related factors were registered. Psychometric properties of the QoLDAS were investigated. Correlations between both indices were explored using the Spearman's rank test. Descriptive and non-parametric probes were run to evaluate the effect of the study variables on the OARQoL (α=0.05). RESULTS: The QoLDAS-9 was reliable and valid. The factor analysis confirmed the existence of three dimensions and meaningful inter-correlations among the nine finally included items. Both scales were inversely correlated. The self-reported aesthetic and functional satisfaction and the education level significantly modulated the OARQoL as measured with the QoLDAS-9. CONCLUSIONS: The QoLDAS-9 confirmed its psychometric capacity for assessing the OARQoL of CD and IO wearers. Both groups showed comparably high OARQoL. Superior education degrees lead to lower OARQoL. CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE: The QoLDAS-9 may be recommended for anticipating the effect of prosthetic restorations on OARQoL. CD and IO are predictable treatment options for improving the aesthetic self-perception of edentulous patients.