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

Castillo-Oyagüe, Raquel; Suárez-García, María-Jesús; Perea, Carmen; Río, Jaime Del; Lynch, Christopher D.; Gonzalo, Esther; Torrés-Lagares, Daniel; Preciado, Arelis

doi:10.1016/j.jdent.2016.04.011

Cited by 22 publications

(18 citation statements)

References 46 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…OHRQoL impacts were measured using the Brazilian version of the Oral Health Impact Profile for Edentulous Adults (OHIP‐Edent) (Souza et al., 2010), and the Quality of Life Related to Function, Aesthetics, Social, and Thoughts about health behavioural habits (QoLFAST‐10) (Castillo‐Oyagüe et al., 2016).…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Additionally, the QoLFAST‐10 questionnaire was administered at the 1‐year follow‐up to assess oral health‐related quality of life (Castillo‐Oyagüe et al., 2016). The QoLFAST is a validated 10‐item questionnaire, specifically designed for overdenture wearers, containing 4 dimensions related to function (2 items), aesthetics (2 items), socialization (4 items), and thoughts about behavioural health habits (2 items).…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Single versus two‐implant mandibular overdentures using early‐loaded titanium‐zirconium implants with hydrophilic surface and ball attachments: 1‐year randomized clinical trial

Resende

Jordão

Souza

et al. 2021

Clinical Oral Implants Res

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objective This randomized clinical trial aimed to compare the outcomes of the mandibular overdenture retained by one (1‐IOD) or two (2‐IOD) implants. Materials and methods Participants received new complete dentures, were assessed at baseline and randomly assigned to groups. Early loaded single midline implant (1‐IOD) or two implants in the canine regions bilaterally (2‐IOD). Ball attachments were used for overdenture retention. Post‐treatment outcomes (6‐ and 12‐month follow‐ups) included patient satisfaction, oral health‐related quality of life measures, and chewing function. Data analysis included within‐ and between‐group comparisons, and Generalized Estimating Equations. Both superiority and non‐inferiority hypotheses were tested. Results Forty‐seven participants were included (1‐IOD = 23; 2‐IOD = 24). Significant improvements in OHIP‐Edent were observed after insertion of new dentures and at the 1‐year follow‐up compared with baseline. No differences were found between the 1‐ and 2‐IOD groups for the OHIP‐Edent and QoLFAST scores. Patient satisfaction with the mandibular denture improved significantly from baseline to the 6‐month follow‐up and remained unaltered until 1 year, with no differences between groups. The magnitudes of treatment effect sizes were moderate to large for patient‐reported outcomes. Progressive improvement in chewing function occurred in both groups. Non‐inferiority testing based on a 15% non‐inferiority margin showed inconclusive results for patient‐reported outcomes, whilst chewing function in the 1‐IOD group was concluded to be not inferior to the 2‐IOD group. Conclusions Results support the use of both 1‐ and 2‐IOD. The 1‐IOD was also an acceptable alternative to the 2‐IOD as a secondary option for the treatment of the edentulous mandible.

show abstract

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Single versus two‐implant mandibular overdentures using early‐loaded titanium‐zirconium implants with hydrophilic surface and ball attachments: 1‐year randomized clinical trial

Resende

Jordão

Souza

et al. 2021

Clinical Oral Implants Res

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The degree of patient satisfaction is the result of a complicated interaction between psychological and physiological factors [49]. Even though, up till now, there is no any accurate scale or a questionnaire with items related to personal behavioural habits, which might be relevant for motivating the patient to shift their choices towards a specific prosthesis design, keeping in mind conservation of the oral tissues functions [50]. …”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Implant Supported Fixed Restorations versus Implant Supported Removable Overdentures: A Systematic Review

Selim

Ali

Reda

2016

Open Access Maced J Med Sci

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

AIM:The aim of this study is to systematically evaluate and compare implant retained fixed restoration versus implant retained over denture.MATERIAL AND METHODS:Search was made in 2 databases including PubMed and PubMed Central. Title and abstract were screened to select studies comparing implant retained fixed restorations versus implant retained removable overdentures. Articles which did not follow the inclusion criteria were excluded. Included papers were then read carefully for a second stage filter, this was followed by manual searching of bibliography of selected articles.RESULTS:The search resulted in 5 included papers. One study evaluated the masticatory function, while the other 4 evaluated the patient satisfaction. Two of them used Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) as a measurement tool, while the other two used VAS and Categorical Scales (CAT). Stability, ability to chew, ability to clean, ability to speak and esthetics were the main outcomes of the 4 included papers.CONCLUSION:Conflicting results was observed between the fixed and removable restorations.

show abstract

“…Rehabilitation of completely edentulous atrophied mandible can be accomplished with various implant prosthesis, such as implant assisted overdentures, fixed implant supported prostheses with All on four implant concept 6 , or fixed implant supported hybrid prosthesis 7 Fixed-detachable hybrid implant prostheses are cantilevered restorations that are screwed to inter-foraminal implants. They are indicated in case of insufficient bone in the posterior jaw areas with reduced mucosal support 8 .Such prosthesis composed of a metallic framework covered with heat-polymerized resin and prosthetic teeth or pink porcelain and porcelain teeth 8 . The length of cantilever recommended to be 1.5-2 times of the antro-posterior spread (distance between the line connecting the two most distal implants and the centre of the implant most distant to that line 9 ) to allow optimal load distribution to the implants.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Three-dimensional marginal bone loss around implants supporting metal ceramic and metal acrylic screw retained hybrid prosthesis for rehabilitation of atrophied mandible. A cone beam radiographic study

Mohamed

Emarah

2020

Egyptian Dental Journal

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose: This clinical trial aimed to evaluate three-dimensional marginal bone loss around implants supporting metal ceramic and metal acrylic screw retained hybrid prosthesis for rehabilitation of atrophied mandible using cone beam computerized tomography (CBCT) after one year. Materials and methods: Ten completely edentulous patients with mandibular ridge atrophy were randomly assigned into 2 groups; Group I; included 5 patients who received Metal ceramic screw retained hybrid prosthesis, Group II; included 5 patients who received Metal acrylic screw retained hybrid prosthesis. All patients then received 4 implants in the inter-foraminal area of the mandible using the flapless surgical approach. After osteointegration, implants were loaded by the prostheses with a distal cantilever not exceeding a 1.5 antro-posterior spread. Vertical and horizontal bone resorption was assessed at mesial, distal, buccal and lingual aspect of anterior and posterior implants using cone beam computed tomography (CBCT) at time of prosthesis insertion (baseline), 6 months and one year later. Results: After 6 and 12 months, metal ceramic prosthesis showed significant higher vertical and horizontal bone resorption than metal acrylic prosthesis for anterior and posterior implants. Posterior implants showed significant higher vertical and horizontal bone resorption than anterior implants for metal ceramic group only and no difference in bone loss between anterior and posterior implants in metal acrylic group was noted. For both groups and implant positions, vertical and horizontal bone resorption at 12 months significantly increased compared to 6 months Conclusion: Within the limitations of this study, metal acrylic cantilevered prosthesis for screw retained hybrid restoration of edentulous atrophied mandible may be recommended than metal ceramic prosthesis as it was associated with lesser vertical and horizontal bone resorption around the implants (especially the posterior ones) after one year follow up period.

show abstract

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

Abstract: 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.

Cited by 22 publications

References 46 publications

Single versus two‐implant mandibular overdentures using early‐loaded titanium‐zirconium implants with hydrophilic surface and ball attachments: 1‐year randomized clinical trial

Single versus two‐implant mandibular overdentures using early‐loaded titanium‐zirconium implants with hydrophilic surface and ball attachments: 1‐year randomized clinical trial

Implant Supported Fixed Restorations versus Implant Supported Removable Overdentures: A Systematic Review

Three-dimensional marginal bone loss around implants supporting metal ceramic and metal acrylic screw retained hybrid prosthesis for rehabilitation of atrophied mandible. A cone beam radiographic study

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About