Prosthetic hygiene and functional efficacy in completely edentulous patients: satisfaction and quality of life during a 5‐year follow‐up

Martín-Arés, María; Dorado, Cristina Barona; Guisado-Moya, Blanca; Martínez-Rodríguez, Natalia; Cortés-Bretón-Brinkmann, Jorge; Martı́nez-González, José Marı́a

doi:10.1111/clr.12604

Cited by 38 publications

(44 citation statements)

References 18 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…In contrast, compression of denture bearing mucosa of conventional dentures during chewing and biting limits muscle action and decreases masticatory function (Elsyad & Khairallah, ). The increased chewing ability with FP compared to MB was in line with Brennan et al () and Martin‐Ares et al () who found that satisfaction with chewing capacity, mastication, and comfort with eating were significantly higher with implant fixed prostheses than implant overdentures. Similarly, Feine et al () found that patients who gave priority to stability and chewing ability preferred the fixed prostheses over removable prosthesis.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 85%

Patient satisfaction and oral health‐related quality of life (OHRQoL) of conventional denture, fixed prosthesis and milled bar overdenture for All‐on‐4 implant rehabilitation. A crossover study

ELsyad

Elgamal

Askar

et al. 2019

Clinical Oral Implants Res

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objectives This study aimed to evaluate patient satisfaction and oral health‐related quality of life (OHRQoL) of conventional denture, fixed prosthesis and milled bar overdenture for All‐on‐4 implant rehabilitation. Materials and methods Sixteen completely edentulous patients with ill‐fitted mandibular dentures received new mandibular dentures (CDs). After 3 months, 4 implants were installed according to the “All‐on‐4 concept” and immediately loaded with mandibular dentures. Three months after osseointegration, patients received either fixed prosthesis (FP) or milled bar overdenture (MB) in a crossover design. Patient satisfaction was evaluated using a visual analog scale (VAS). OHRQoL was evaluated using the OHIP‐14. Questionnaires of VAS and OHIP‐14 were measured 3 months after wearing each of the following prostheses: CD, FP, and MB. Results For all questions of VAS and OHIP‐14, CD showed significant lower satisfaction compared to FP and MB (p < .00025). FP recorded significant higher VAS scores than MB regarding retention and stability (p < .00007). MB recorded significant higher scores than FP regarding general satisfaction, comfort, ease of cleaning, and handling (p < .00008). Regarding OHIP‐14, no significant differences in OHIP scores between FP and MB were observed for all domains of OHIP. Conclusion “All‐on‐4” implant rehabilitation of edentulous mandible with FP and MB achieves high patient satisfaction and OHRQoL compared to CD. No significant difference in OHRQoL between FP and MB was observed. Regarding VAS, FP rated greater satisfaction with retention, stability, and chewing compared to MB. However, MB rated greater satisfaction with ease of cleaning and handling compared to FP.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 85%

Patient satisfaction and oral health‐related quality of life (OHRQoL) of conventional denture, fixed prosthesis and milled bar overdenture for All‐on‐4 implant rehabilitation. A crossover study

ELsyad

Elgamal

Askar

et al. 2019

Clinical Oral Implants Res

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…(); Martínez‐González et al. (); Martín‐Ares, Barona‐dorado, Guisado‐moya, Martínez‐rodríguez, & Martínez‐gonzález, ; Oh et al., ). However, two of them took items from OHIP‐14 in order to create a modified questionnaire.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…However, two of them took items from OHIP‐14 in order to create a modified questionnaire. Therefore, wording of the items was inconsistent (Martín‐Ares et al., ; Martínez‐González et al., ). Regarding evaluation of patient satisfaction, no standard questionnaire was found in the included studies.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

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

Yao

Cao

Bornstein

et al. 2018

Clinical Oral Implants Res

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

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 patientreported outcomes measures. Results: Of 1,563 initially screened articles, 13 studies including 8 prospective and 5retrospective 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. K E Y W O R D Sdental prosthesis, edentulous, implant-supported, outcome assessment (Health Care), patient satisfaction, patient-reported outcomes measures, personal satisfaction, quality of life This is an open access article under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial License, which permits use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited and is not used for commercial purposes.

show abstract

“…54 The patients' age could be considered an influencing factor for selection of the type of rehabilitation. 55,56 Two studies were dealing with patients of average age 64 and 67.8 years. 50.52 While in the remaining three studies younger age were included as the age ranged from second to seventh decades, 32,49-52 so all studies included all variation of age.…”

Section: Discussion:-mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…49,52,[55][56][57][58][59][60][61] Regarding the tumor stage, several studies reported that QoL is lower in patients who have large tumors and late stage. [58][59][60][61] In our search, only one study reported tumor stage, However, the data in the this study suggested that all approaches should be discussed with the patients without concern about the stage of tumors.…”

Section: Discussion:-mentioning

confidence: 99%

Does Evidence Support Prosthetic or Surgical Rehabilitation for Patients With Maxillary Defect Regarding the Quality of Life? Systematic Review.

SharafM¹,

IbrahimS²,

EskanderA³

et al. 2017

IJAR

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Prosthetic hygiene and functional efficacy in completely edentulous patients: satisfaction and quality of life during a 5‐year follow‐up

Cited by 38 publications

References 18 publications

Patient satisfaction and oral health‐related quality of life (OHRQoL) of conventional denture, fixed prosthesis and milled bar overdenture for All‐on‐4 implant rehabilitation. A crossover study

Patient satisfaction and oral health‐related quality of life (OHRQoL) of conventional denture, fixed prosthesis and milled bar overdenture for All‐on‐4 implant rehabilitation. A crossover study

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

Does Evidence Support Prosthetic or Surgical Rehabilitation for Patients With Maxillary Defect Regarding the Quality of Life? Systematic Review.

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About