Patient satisfaction and oral health-related quality of life 10 years after implant placement

Abstract

Background Implant survival and implant success (freedom of biologic complications) are important factors in assessing the success of implant therapy. However, these factors are not the only determinants. Patients’ satisfaction also plays a very important role in daily practice. Therefore, the aim of this study was to assess patients’ satisfaction regarding function (phonetics, chewing comfort, stability, cleanability) and aesthetics in patients treated with XiVE and Frialite implants in a private periodontal practice ten years after implant placement. Furthermore, oral health-related quality of life (OHRQoL) was evaluated. Methods Patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) regarding overall satisfaction, phonetics, chewing comfort, stability, cleanability, and aesthetics were examined on a Visual Analog Scale (VAS) 10 years ± 6 months after implant placement in a cross-sectional survey. OHRQoL and psychological impact were assessed via the Oral Health Impact Profile (OHIP) and Psychosocial Impact of Dental Aesthetics Questionnaire (PIDAQ). Potential influence of patient-related factors (age, gender, smoking, peri-implantitis, implant position, type of restoration) on VAS, OHRQoL and PIDAQ were investigated using regression analyses. Results High satisfaction with implant-supported restorations was seen in all 95 patients ten years after implant placement. Mean VAS-score for general satisfaction with implant-supported restoration was 93.0% (SD ± 9.4, median: 96.3%, range 50.0–100%). Mean OHIP score was 11.3 (SD ± 10.8, median: 9.0, range 0–45), mean PIDAQ score 20.5 (SD ± 11.37, median: 17.0, range 0–52). A slight tendency that presence of a moderate/severe peri-implantitis lowers satisfaction could be detected (overall satisfaction: ordinal, p = 0.012, VAS, p = 0.026). Also, the factors age, implant position and type of restoration might have an impact on patient’s satisfaction. Conclusions Patients restored with mostly fixed implant-supported restorations showed a very high patient satisfaction regarding function and aesthetics 10-year after implant placement. The presence of a moderate/severe peri-implantitis showed a slight tendency for influencing patient satisfaction. Due to the cross-sectional design results have to be interpreted with care.

Effect of peri‐implant disease on oral health–related quality of life in geriatric patients

“…However, this study did not state whether patients had peri-implant mucositis. Both studies, by Romandini et al 24 and Wang et al, 25 found no difference between the presence and absence of peri-implantitis in terms of total OHIP values. In patients' mean age was 63.7 (range not specified) in Romandini et al 24 and 63.4 (ranging from 28 to 86) in Wang et al's 25 study.…”

“…Both studies, by Romandini et al 24 and Wang et al, 25 found no difference between the presence and absence of peri-implantitis in terms of total OHIP values. In patients' mean age was 63.7 (range not specified) in Romandini et al 24 and 63.4 (ranging from 28 to 86) in Wang et al's 25 study. Neither study was confined to geriatric populations; therefore, the literature contains no studies that specifically focus on evaluating the effect of peri-implant disease on quality of life in the geriatric population, especially in groups including perimucositis.…”

“…However, Romandini et al 24 did not investigate the correlation between periodontal clinical indices and OHIP scores. In a longitudinal study, Wang et al 25 TA B L E 4 OHIP-14 scores and clinical data from H, PM and PI groups showed that 46.8% of patients had peri-implantitis, while others reported healthy peri-implant tissue. However, this study did not state whether patients had peri-implant mucositis.…”

Tokat İlindeki Bireylerin Diş İmplant Tedavileri Hakkındaki Bilgi Düzeylerinin Değerlendirilmesi: Anket Çalışması

“…[3] Dental implant treatment; it has taken its place in the literature as a treatment method that is mostly welcomed by patients and the results are better than other prosthetic methods. [4][5][6][7][8] In over implant prostheses; thanks to the adequate retention and stability of the prosthesis, functional prostheses can be made and thus the quality of life of the patient can be improved. [9] In short, dental implant treatment is accepted as the gold standard today for the elimination of tooth losses.…”

Selected Spectroscopic Techniques for Surface Analysis of Dental Materials: A Narrative Review

“…The application of the material in the oral cavity, i.e., in direct contact with tissues, places special demands on this group of biomaterials regarding their physicochemical and biological properties, i.e., biocompatibility, local and general harmlessness to the organism [ 18 , 21 , 22 ], resistance to the effects of physicochemical factors in the oral cavity [ 21 ] and biophysical indifference [ 18 , 19 ]. In addition, the accuracy in mimicking natural tooth shapes [ 19 ], stability of mechanical properties [ 19 , 22 ], ease processing [ 21 , 23 ], appropriate aesthetics [ 19 , 24 ], and finally a moderate price [ 19 , 23 ] are further requirements that need to be met. The first phenomenon that occurs after the introduction of the biomaterial into the oral cavity is the formation of a biofilm on its surface [ 25 , 26 , 27 ].…”