Changes in oral health-related quality of life after three different strategies of implant therapy: a clinical trial

Montero, Javier; Dolz, Javier; Silvestre, Francisco-Javier; Flores, Javier; Dib, Abraham; Gómez‐Polo, C.

doi:10.1007/s10266-018-0406-x

Cited by 6 publications

(6 citation statements)

References 24 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The previous assumption that immediate or early loading would satisfy the patient more than delayed loading was not general. Contrary, most studies did not find any difference, and if they did, it was not reported after longer observation times (Montero et al, 2019). It has to be emphasized that most of the included studies were single tooth replacements and the specificity of the used PROMs for this group of patients probably are low.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 89%

“…One study found that the immediate, non-occlusal loading group was more satisfied with the function than the immediate occlusal group (Heinemann et al, 2016). One study showed markedly greater improvement in oral well-being for the immediate loading group compared to the delayed group at the baseline examination just after the prosthetic rehabilitation, but the difference disappeared after 3 month of function (Montero et al, 2019).…”

Section: Implant Loading Partially Edentulous Patientsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Patient’s perception of timing concepts in implant dentistry: A systematic review

Gotfredsen

Hosseini

Rimborg³

et al. 2021

Clinical Oral Implants Res

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Protocols for implant dentistry, most frequently include periods until healing of the extraction sockets and osseointegration of the implant. Deductional thinking imply that patients would prefer if treatment time in implant dentistry were reduced. Aim What is the patient perception of immediate or early implant placement or loading in comparison with traditional, delayed placement, and/or loading assessed by patient‐reported outcome measures, as evidenced in randomized controlled clinical trials or prospective controlled studies? Material and methods A systematic review was performed following the PRISMA guidelines with a literature search up to June 30. All hits were imported into Rayyan online software and analyzed by two authors for eligibility. Cochrane RoB2.0 and Newcastle‐Ottawa Scale were used to evaluate risk of bias in the individual studies. Results Of the initially 1439 articles, 76 underwent full‐text analysis and finally 40 articles, representing 35 cohort studies, were included. The quality evaluation demonstrated some concerns among most of the studies. Conclusion a) There is no strong evidence to support that the time for implant placement or loading of implant‐supported single or short‐span reconstructions or overdentures influence patients´ discomfort, satisfaction with function or esthetics or overall satisfaction with the implant treatment. b) There is some evidence that studies including edentulous patients rehabilitated with implant‐supported full‐arch FDPs demonstrate more satisfied patients with immediate than for the early or delayed loaded implant reconstructions after short time, but the difference is not clear one year after treatment.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 89%

Section: Implant Loading Partially Edentulous Patientsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Patient’s perception of timing concepts in implant dentistry: A systematic review

Gotfredsen

Hosseini

Rimborg³

et al. 2021

Clinical Oral Implants Res

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…A global oral satisfaction scale (OSS) has been used in several studies, 20,21 but as the name indicates it is quite general. More specific is the Dental Impacts on Daily Living (DIDL) developed by Leao and Sheiham 15 and the Oral Impact on Daily Performance (OIDP) described by Adulyanon and Sheiham 22 .…”

Section: Proms Measuresmentioning

confidence: 99%

Patient‐reported outcomes for bone regenerative procedures

Klaus

2023

Periodontology 2000

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Evidence‐based dentistry used for decision‐making and assessment of treatment includes three components: evidence from the literature, clinical expertise, and patient expectations. Patient satisfaction embraces affability, availability, and ability and can be examined using questionnaires or structured questions to the patient to evaluate patient perception of the treatment. The questions can be quantified using dichotomous, point, or visual analog scales. This would be a straightforward patient‐reported outcome measure (PROM). Validated and specific oral health‐related quality of life (OHRQoL) questionnaires such as the oral health impact profile (OHIP), oral impact on daily performance (OIDP), or the dental impact on daily living (DIDL) can be used as PROMs, and these measures are appropriate for population studies, where you can measure changes over time and differences between treatment groups. PROMs have shown to enhance patient engagement when integrated into clinical care. PROMs for bone regenerative procedures are mainly used as secondary outcome and are concentrating on the prosthetic outcome more than the pain, discomfort, anxiety, and cost of the surgical procedures. Surprisingly, most patients are satisfied and willing to have the procedures performed again. Whether this is recall bias or not and how the information’s from the dentist and the team influence the patients answers to PROMs questionnaires are discussed. The importance of patient perspectives in bone regeneration procedures is obvious and combined with clinical outcome measures, it increases our ability to provide better care. Studies using PROMs as a primary outcome variable are required.

show abstract

“…In our study, the Oral Impact on Daily Performances (OIDP) index was chosen because the index was developed and systematically validated in all age groups of the Thai population, i.e., primary school children, teenagers, adults, and elderly [ 10 – 14 ]. In addition, the OIDP was used as a part of 6 th to the present (9 th ) Thailand National Oral Health Surveys [ 12 , 15 ] and has been found to be a valid measure for use in many clinical trials, including patients with a prosthesis, dental implants, cleft lip and palate, and OLP [ 16 – 20 ]. Moreover, the conceptual framework of the OIDP is different from the OHIP index because the OIDP assesses only the ultimate impacts, that are, difficulties in daily life performances which are the consequences of intermediate impacts of pain, discomfort, functional limitation and change in appearance [ 11 ].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Thai version of shortened Oral Impact on Daily Performances index for evaluating oral lichen planus patients

Yiemstan¹,

Piboonratanakit²,

Krisdapong³

2023

BMC Oral Health

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background Patients’ perceptions and Oral Health-related Quality of life (OHRQoL) are important parts of dental treatment in all fields, including oral lichen planus (OLP) patients. A shortened version of the Oral Impact on Daily Performances (OIDP) might be more practical and feasible in clinical setting due to the busy nature of oral medicine clinics and staff availability to conduct the interview for data collection. The aim of the study was to develop a Thai version of shortened OIDP for assessing the OHRQoL in OLP patients. Methods Two types of shortened OIDP versions were tested in 69 OLP patients, one comprising the most commonly interfered with daily performances (OIDP-3 and OIDP-2) and another comprising either the highest frequency (OIDP frequency) or severity score (OIDP severity). The Numeric Rating Scale (NRS) and Thongprasom sign score were used to assess oral pain and clinical severity. Spearman rank-order correlation coefficients (rs) were used to demonstrate the associations between the shortened and original OIDP, pain, and clinical severity. Results OIDP-3 (Eating, Cleaning, and Emotional stability) and OIDP-2 (Eating and Emotional stability) were developed. The associations of the original OIDP with OIDP-3 and OIDP-2 (rs = 0.965 and 0.911) were significantly higher than those of the original OIDP with OIDP frequency and OIDP severity (rs = 0.768 and 0.880). The original OIDP, OIDP-3, and OIDP-2 were more significantly associated with pain compared with OIDP frequency and OIDP severity. The association between the clinical severity and oral impacts assessed by the original OIDP, OIDP-3, and OIDP-2 were similar and had higher correlation coefficients compared with those of OIDP frequency and OIDP severity. Conclusion OIDP-3 and OIDP-2 performed more similarly to the original OIDP than OIDP frequency and OIDP severity in assessing the OHRQoL of OLP patients. Trial registration The trial was registered at the Thai Clinical Trials Registry (TCTR identifier: TCTR 20190828002).

show abstract

Changes in oral health-related quality of life after three different strategies of implant therapy: a clinical trial

Cited by 6 publications

References 24 publications

Patient’s perception of timing concepts in implant dentistry: A systematic review

Patient’s perception of timing concepts in implant dentistry: A systematic review

Patient‐reported outcomes for bone regenerative procedures

Thai version of shortened Oral Impact on Daily Performances index for evaluating oral lichen planus patients

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About