Oral health-related quality of life of patients rehabilitated with fixed and removable implant-supported dental prostheses.

Dental implants have become a mainstream treatment approach in daily practice, and because of their high survival rates over time, they have become the preferred treatment option for prosthetic rehabilitation in many situations. Despite the relatively high predictability of implant therapy and high costs to patients, patient perceptions of success and patient-reported outcome measures have become increasingly significant in implant dentistry. Increasing numbers of publications deal with oral health-related quality of life and/or patient-reported outcome measures. The aim of this paper was to provide an overview of the available evidence on oral health-related quality of life of fully and partially dentate patients rehabilitated with fixed and removable implant-supported dental prostheses. A comprehensive electronic search was performed on publications in English up to 2021. A selection of standardized questionnaires and scales used for the evaluation of oral health-related quality of life were analyzed and explained. The analysis encompassed three aspects: a functional evaluation of oral health-related quality of life, an esthetic assessment of oral health-related quality of life, and a cost-related evaluation of oral health-related quality of life for rehabilitation with dental implants. The data demonstrated that the preoperative expectations of patients markedly affected the outcomes perceived by the patients. As expected, reconstructions supported by implants substantially improved the stability of conventional dentures and allowed improved function and patient satisfaction. However, from a patient's perspective, oral health-related quality of life was not significantly greater for dental implants compared with conventional tooth-supported prostheses. The connection of the implants to the prostheses with locators or balls indicated high oral health-related quality of life. The data also suggest that patient expectation is not a good predictor of treatment outcome. In terms of esthetic outcomes, the data clearly indicate that patients' perceptions and clinicians' assessments differed, with those of clinicians yielding higher standards. There were no significant differences found between the esthetic oral health-related quality of life ratings for soft tissue-level implants compared with those for bone-level implants. Comparison of all-ceramic and metal-ceramic restorations showed no significant differences in patients' perceptions in terms of esthetic outcomes. Depending on the choice of outcome measure and financial marginal value, supporting a conventional removable partial denture with implants is cost-effective when the patient is willing to invest more to achieve a higher oral health-related quality of life. In conclusion, the oral health-related quality of life of patients rehabilitated with implant-supported dental prostheses did not show overall superiority over conventional prosthetics. Clinicians' and patients' evaluations, especially of esthetic outcomes, are, in the majority of cases, incongruent. Nevertheless, patient-reported outcomes are important in the evaluation of function, esthetics, and the cost-effectiveness of treatment with implant-supported dental prostheses, and should be taken into consideration in daily practice.

Clinical evaluation of a novel protocol for supportive periodontal care: A randomized controlled clinical trial.

BACKGROUND: The aim of this study was to compare the clinical efficacy and the patient perception of subgingival debridement with either guided biofilm management (GBM) or conventional scaling and root planing (SRP) during supportive periodontal care (SPC). METHODS: Forty-one patients in SPC were randomly assigned to either treatment with GBM or SRP every 6 months. The primary outcome was the percentage of bleeding on probing (BoP) at 1 year. Moreover, pocket probing depths (PPD), recession, and furcation involvements were also measured. Full-mouth and specific site analyzes were performed at baseline, 6 and 12 months of SPC. Patient comfort was evaluated using a visual analogue scale (VAS) at 12 months. RESULTS: At 1 year, mean BoP percentage decreased from 12.2% to 9.0% (p = 0.191) and from 14.7% to 7.9% (p = 0.004) for the GBM and SRP groups, respectively. Furcation involved multirooted teeth but no through-and-through lesions were significantly fewer in the GBM than in the SRP group after 12 months (p = 0.015). The remaining parameters showed slight improvement in both groups without any statistically significant differences between the two groups after 1 year. Pain evaluation as patient reported outcome measures (pain evaluation) was in favor (p = 0.347) of the SRP group, while overall satisfaction was similar for both groups. Treatment time was not statistically significantly different between the two groups (p = 0.188). CONCLUSION: In well-maintained SPC patients, SRP protocols resulted in significant clinical improvements in terms of BoP; however, for the other clinical improvements, similar efficacy for both GBM and SRP was observed.

Periodontal disease progression in the second half of life and following a single episode of scaling and root planing: A clinical study in the Sri Lankan tea plantation cohort with documented clinical parameters for more than 40 years.

BACKGROUND: To evaluate periodontal disease progression (PDP) and potentially detectable effects of a single episode of scaling and root planing (se-SRP) in subjects lacking professional dental care and oral hygiene practices for >40 years. METHODS: In 2013, se-SRP was offered to all available subjects from the original cohort of 480 males initially established in 1970. From a total of 75 attending the previous examination in 2010 (baseline), 27 consented to receive the intervention while 18 declined and served as controls. Clinical data were recorded again in 2014 (follow-up) similarly to the previous surveys (1970 to 2010). RESULTS: Subjects' mean age in 2010 was 62.5 (± 3.6, test) and 61.9 (± 3.8, control) years. At follow-up, both groups presented with elevated tooth loss of 1.2 (from 15.5 ± 9.0, test) and 1.5 (from 17.9 ± 6.6, control) resulting in 1,392 (test) and 1,061 (control) sites available for further analysis. In both groups, clinical attachment level (CAL) loss and probing depths (PD) deteriorated. PD increase of 0.22 mm (± 1.70) in the test group was significantly higher compared with the control group (0.08 mm ± 1.30) (P <0.0001) demonstrating unaffected PDP. Computed estimates of further PDP revealed CAL and PD reductions in subjects aged ≥40 years. Specifically, the latter was positively correlated with tooth loss in subjects aged ≥40 years (P = 0.69, P = 0.0012) and ≥50 years (r = 0.62, P <0.0001). CONCLUSION: se-SRP in previously untreated periodontitis subjects aged ≥50 years may be ineffective in reducing PDP thus demanding advanced preventive measures, treatment in the first half of life, and sustained access to supportive care.