Patients’ Perception of Recovery after Dental Implant Placement

Abstract

Background and Objectives: The success rates of surgical dental implant insertions are high. However, knowledge of patients’ recovery is still lacking. “Health-related quality of life” (HRQOL) questionnaires are gaining popularity in all fields of medicine. The present survey assessed the perception of recovery after the surgical placement of dental implants. Materials and Methods: Forty individuals (26 women and 14 men; mean age, 55 ± 12 years) filled a questionnaire evaluating patients’ perception of recovery for 7 consecutive days post-surgery. Confounding factors included age, gender, oral habits, smoking, bruxism, bone quality (tactile evaluation) and quantity, implant location, number of implants, implant type, length and diameter, one-stage vs. two-stage, and the need for bone grafting. Results: The most serious difficulties were found in swelling, which became minimal after 5 days, followed by eating everyday food, ability to enjoy everyday food, maximal pain and average pain (3 days); analgesics consumption (2.5 days); limitations in daily routine, mouth opening, and speech (2 days); swallowing and sleep (1.5 days); and, within 1 day, all other measures attained minimal levels. Gender, and implant location (anterior vs. posterior) were significant predictor variables exerting their different characteristic delayed recoveries. Conclusions: (1) Patients should expect, in general, recovery within 4 days after dental implant placement; (2) women will experience a delayed recovery, (3) implants placed in the intercanine area will result in postoperative eating difficulties for nearly one week, and (4) the number of implants placed during the same appointment has no effect on post treatment recovery.

Mini-Implants Retaining Removable Partial Dentures in Subjects without Posterior Teeth: A 5-Year Prospective Study Comparing the Maxilla and the Mandible

“…The benefits of IFPDs in Kennedy Class I patients have been extensively described in the dental literature [ 7 , 47 ]. However, many patients are not candidates for IFPD treatment due to restrictions of their posterior alveolar ridge anatomy, financial status, fear of demanding surgical interventions, or co-morbidities that restrict demanding surgical procedures and healing [ 48 , 49 , 50 ]. Therefore, the manufacture of conventional RPD can be an alternative.…”

“…Therefore, the insertion of mini-implants can be a beneficial solution. It is also a cost-effective method [ 51 ] that is frequently performed by a flapless surgery which provokes less pain than the open-flap insertion of standard-sized implants [ 48 , 49 ], favoring the MDIs for geriatric patients whose bone volume is usually reduced. However, due to a lack of clinical outcomes in longitudinal clinical studies on MDIs retaining an RPD, the longitudinal prospective cohort study was designed, comparing the mandible and maxilla.…”

Clinical Outcomes of Three versus Four Mini-Implants Retaining Mandibular Overdenture: A 5-Year Randomized Clinical Trial

“…Although MDIs were once considered to be implants with a diameter less than 3.0 mm [6], the newest classification defines them as one-piece category 1 narrow implants with a diameter ranging from 1.8 to 2.5 mm [7]. The insertion of MDIs can often be performed without raising a flap, thus decreasing the duration of postsurgical recovery [8,9]. The insertion of four MDIs in the mandible for complete overdenture (OD) retention has been verified as an excellent clinical treatment option in subjects with narrow alveolar ridges, due to the very good survival and success rates of implants accompanied by increased patient satisfaction [3][4][5][10][11][12][13][14].…”