Comparison of fixed implant‐supported prostheses, removable implant‐supported prostheses, and complete dentures: patient satisfaction and oral health‐related quality of life

Oh, Sung-Hee; Kim, Younhee; Park, Joo Yeon; Jung, Yea Ji; Kim, Seong-Kyun; Park, Sunyoung

doi:10.1111/clr.12514

Cited by 83 publications

(116 citation statements)

References 30 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Only 6% demonstrated a reliable improvement for T2–T3. This positive effect of an implant treatment on OHRQoL has been noted by several recent studies . Patients with a Kennedy III classification had a statistically significant higher OHIP score at intake (T1) and after 2 weeks of surgery (T2) than did patients with a Kennedy II classification.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 74%

The effect of implant placement in patients with either Kennedy class II and III on oral health‐related quality of life: a prospective clinical trial

Eekeren

Aartman

Tahmaseb

et al. 2015

J of Oral Rehabilitation

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

There is little evidence of the effect of implants restored with fixed partial dentures on oral health-related quality of life (OHRQoL) in partially edentulous Kennedy class II and III patients. The aim of this study was to determine the change in OHRQoL in Kennedy classification II and III patients treated with a two-implant-supported fixed dental prosthesis (FDP). Kennedy class II and III patients received dental implants and an FDP. Oral health-related quality of life was measured by administration of the Oral Health Impact Profile-14 (OHIP-14NL) questionnaire at intake (T1), 2 weeks after surgery (T2) and after 1 year of loading (T3). The mean OHIP score at T1 was 6·5 ± 1·2, 2·4 ± 1·0 at T2, and 0·9 ± 0·3 at T3. There was a statistically significant difference between T1 and T2 (P = 0·002) and T1 and T3 (P < 0·001) but not between T2 and T3 (P = 0·407). The OHIP score in Kennedy II patients decreased from 4·8 ± 3·2 at T1 to 1·5 ± 2·0 at T2 and 1·1 ± 1·8 at T3, and that in Kennedy III patients decreased from 8·9 ± 9·6 at T1 to 3·6 ± 8·9 at T2 and 0·8 ± 2·2 at T3. There were no statistically significant differences in the reductions in Kennedy II and III patients. Oral health-related quality of life changed positively in patients treated with implants and an FDP in both groups. There was no change in OHRQoL between the times of implant placement and FDP placement.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 74%

The effect of implant placement in patients with either Kennedy class II and III on oral health‐related quality of life: a prospective clinical trial

Eekeren

Aartman

Tahmaseb

et al. 2015

J of Oral Rehabilitation

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The excellent results found in the present study could also be related to the good prosthesis stability as, on an average, each prosthesis was supported by four or more implants. Another study by Oh and colleagues confirmed that oral health‐related quality of life improved similarly for implant‐supported fixed prosthesis and for implant‐anchored overdentures as compared to removable dentures . The authors stressed the importance to focus on patient‐centred outcomes when choosing a treatment option.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 95%

Patient satisfaction and clinical outcomes in implant‐supported overdentures retained by milled bars: Two‐year follow‐up

Toia

Wennerberg

Torrisi³

et al. 2019

J of Oral Rehabilitation

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Summary Objectives This observational clinical study evaluated the patient satisfaction and the clinical outcomes of edentulous arches rehabilitated with overdentures retained by CAD‐CAM milled titanium bars. Materials and Methods Edentulous patients were treated with a full‐arch removable overdenture anchored on two milled bars based on a friction retention system. Patient satisfaction was tested using the validated Oral Health Impact Profile (OHIP‐14) questionnaire at the pre‐ and post‐treatment visits, up to two years after prosthesis delivery (possible score range: 0‐56. Best: 0). The prosthodontist satisfaction was also assessed through a designed questionnaire (best possible range 0‐4. Best:0). Radiographic and clinical examinations were performed at baseline and after 2 years of function. Implant and prostheses complications were recorded. Results Forty (25 mandible) edentulous patients, mean age 69 ± 9.5 (SD) (52% males, 10% smokers), were treated with a total of 185 implants. The mean difference between pre‐ and post‐treatment OHIP‐14 score was 20.6 ± 8.0 (P < 0.0001) showing a high level of satisfaction for aesthetics, functional and psychological outcomes. This perception was not influenced by patient's age or gender. The clinicians' mean score was 3.4 ± 4.0. There was a marginal bone level (MBL) gain of 0.02 ± 0.22 mm between the two time points. Minor complications were reported in five patients. Conclusions This procedure may lead to satisfaction regarding aesthetics and mastication function. One of the most relevant aspects is the versatility, which allows selection of the most suitable treatment option according to patient needs. The prosthodontist satisfaction questionnaire showed that this procedure met the clinical expectations.

show abstract

“…1,2 Nonetheless, there are few studies assessing the Oral Health-Related Quality of Life (OHRQoL) of implant prosthesis wearers. [3][4][5][6] Although different generic scales have been used, 3,4,[7][8][9] specific questionnaires are preferred to measure the impact of implant prostheses on the OHRQoL. 5,6 In this respect, a new, short and precise index, called 'Quality of Life with ImplantProstheses (QoLIP-10)' 5,6 has recently been developed.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Validation of the ‘Quality of Life with Implant Prostheses (QoLIP-10)’ questionnaire for wearers of cement-retained implant-supported restorations

Perea¹,

Río²,

Preciado³

et al. 2015

Journal of Dentistry

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Comparison of fixed implant‐supported prostheses, removable implant‐supported prostheses, and complete dentures: patient satisfaction and oral health‐related quality of life

Cited by 83 publications

References 30 publications

The effect of implant placement in patients with either Kennedy class II and III on oral health‐related quality of life: a prospective clinical trial

The effect of implant placement in patients with either Kennedy class II and III on oral health‐related quality of life: a prospective clinical trial

Patient satisfaction and clinical outcomes in implant‐supported overdentures retained by milled bars: Two‐year follow‐up

Validation of the ‘Quality of Life with Implant Prostheses (QoLIP-10)’ questionnaire for wearers of cement-retained implant-supported restorations

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About