Implant-Supported Removable Partial Denture Improves the Quality of Life of Patients with Extreme Tooth Loss

Abstract

This study aimed to evaluate oral health-related quality of life (OHRQoL) in partially dentate subjects, presenting extreme tooth loss in posterior region with missing post-canines, comparing the use of conventional removable partial dentures (RPDs) and implant-supported RPDs. OHRQoL was measured using the Brazilian version of the Oral Health Impact Profile. Twelve subjects presenting maxillary total and mandibular Kennedy Class I edentulism (mean age 62.6±7.8 years) first received complete maxillary dentures and conventional mandibular free-end RPDs. After two months, the subjects had their OHRQoL assessed. Osseointegrated implants were inserted bilaterally in the mandibular first molar regions, and after four months ball abutments were placed to support the free-end RPD. Two months later, the patients had their OHRQoL reassessed. Wilcoxon signed-rank test was used to evaluate differences in OHRQoL (α=0.05). Results showed improvement in all OHIP-49 domains (p<0.05) after associating implants to the RPD. The mandibular implant-supported free-end RPD significantly improved OHRQoL.

Cost‐effectiveness of implant‐supported mandibular removable partial dentures

“…Cognitive dissonance can be defined as the discomfort that is experienced by a person who holds contradictory beliefs, in this case that a conventional RPD will not work sufficiently and that implant support will provide the desired additional comfort as projected by the treating physician (Festinger & Festinger 1962). The mean reduction of 18.8 point in OHIP-NL49 is consistent with results found by Gates et al who reported an OHIP-49 reduction of 11.8 points and several other retrospective studies and case reports using other patient-based measures (Grossmann et al 2009;Kaufmann et al 2009;Wismeijer et al 2013;Gates et al 2014 49 (Brazilian translation) values of 75 and 10 for RPDs and ISRPDs, respectively; hence a far larger improvement for which no explanation can be offered (Campos et al 2015). A minimal importance difference (MID) of six points (95% CL, 2-9) has been suggested for OHIP use in dentistry (John et al 2009).…”

“…However, Campos et al. () reported median OHIP‐49 (Brazilian translation) values of 75 and 10 for RPDs and ISRPDs, respectively; hence a far larger improvement for which no explanation can be offered (Campos et al. ).…”

Effect of conversion to implant‐assisted removable partial denture in patients with mandibular Kennedy classification Ⅰ: A systematic review and meta‐analysis

“…The PROMs using VAS and/or OHIP were improved after conversion in most of the studies (Campos, Goncalves, & Garcia, ; Goncalves, Campos, & Garcia, ; Jensen et al, ; Ohkubo, Kobayashi, Suzuki, & Hosoi, ; Suzuki et al, ; Wismeijer et al, ).…”

Shortened dental arch and prosthetic effect on oral health‐related quality of life: a systematic review and meta‐analysis

“…Recently, implant‐assisted RPDP (IARPDP) restoration has emerged as a potential alternative for patients with SDA. Some prospective studies have shown that the placement of a minimum number of implants (one or two) under existing free‐end RPDPs results in additional improvement of OHRQoL, with minimal expense and surgical intervention (Fig. ).…”

“… OHRQ oL in patients with SDA and Kennedy Class I or II partially edentulous patients with RPDP , IFPDP or IARPDP restoration up to molars (), evaluated using the OHIP ‐49 or 14 questionnaire. The mean values and standard deviations of OHIP summary scores are presented.…”