Study on Oral Health–Related Quality of Life in Patients After Dental Implant Treatment with Patient-Reported Outcome

Nagahisa, Keina; Arai, Korenori; Baba, Shigeaki

doi:10.11607/jomi.6496

Cited by 9 publications

(9 citation statements)

References 9 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Results of this current study were similar to those of two other studies of pre‐ and postimplant patients at Osaka Dental University although another measure, the General Oral Health Assessment Instrument (GOHAI) was used in those populations …”

Section: Resultssupporting

confidence: 80%

“…11 Results of this current study were similar to those of two other studies of pre-and postimplant patients at Osaka Dental University although another measure, the General Oral Health Assessment Instrument (GOHAI) was used in those populations. 12,13 Both the OHIP-14 (1997) and the GOHAI (1990) have often been used in dental studies with essentially similar results. A direct comparison of the two in measuring OHRQoL found that they were equally good at predicting overall psychological well-being and life satisfaction.…”

Section: Measuring Ohrqolmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Improving oral health‐related quality of life for a traumatic brain injury patient: A case report

Takeuchi

Planerova

Malmström

et al. 2019

Special Care in Dentistry

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Aims A preliminary aim was to determine if a patient who had suffered a traumatic brain injury (TBI) could tolerate removal of his remaining teeth and replacement with partially implant‐supported prosthetic replacements. The primary aim was to determine if the patient and also his main caregiver could assess a potential change in his oral health‐related quality of life. Methods and results Procedures for the patient were conservative dental restorations, removal of nonrestorable teeth, placement of implants, and fabrication of new dentures. The patient and his primary caregiver, independently, completed the Oral Health Impact Profile‐14 (OHIP‐14) before and after placement of the implants and Locators. The scores were then compared. The results were that both successfully completed the OHIP‐14 and scores showed improvement at 3 and 6 months. Conclusion This is the first report of both, a TBI patient and his primary caregiver independently self‐assessing improvement in his quality of life using the OHIP‐14 after fabrication of an implant‐supported overdenture.

show abstract

Section: Resultssupporting

confidence: 80%

Section: Measuring Ohrqolmentioning

confidence: 99%

Improving oral health‐related quality of life for a traumatic brain injury patient: A case report

Takeuchi

Planerova

Malmström

et al. 2019

Special Care in Dentistry

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Dental implants are the gold standard treatment to restore single edentulous space and partially or completely edentulous jaws because of their long-term success rate, the positive impact on patients' quality of life, and the simplified modern surgical procedures with low morbidity [1,2].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Radiological Outcomes of Bone-Level and Tissue-Level Dental Implants: Systematic Review

Cosola

Marconcini²,

Boccuzzi³

et al. 2020

IJERPH

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: to assess the radiological marginal bone loss between bone-level or tissue-level dental implants through a systematic review of literature until September 2019. Methods: MEDLINE, Embase and other database were searched by two independent authors including only English articles. Results: The search provided 1028 records and, after removing the duplicates through titles and abstracts screening, 45 full-text articles were assessed for eligibility. For qualitative analysis 20 articles were included, 17 articles of them for quantitative analysis counting a total of 1161 patients (mean age 54.4 years) and 2933 implants, 1427 inserted at Tissue-level (TL) and 1506 inserted at Bone-level (BL). The survival rate and the success rate were more than 90%, except for 2 studies with a success rate of 88% and 86.2%. No studies reported any differences between groups in term of success and survival rates. Three studies showed that BL-implants had statistically less marginal bone loss (p < 0.05). Only one study reported statistically less marginal bone loss in TL-implants (p < 0.05). Conclusion: In the most part of the studies, differences between implant types in marginal bone loss were not statistically significant after a variable period of follow-up ranged between 1 and 5 years.

show abstract

“…In this context, it has been reported that fixed, implant-supported restorations offer a predictable treatment modality, which significantly improves the quality of life for patients. 1 Fixed prostheses can be retained to the dental implant by cementation or screw retention. Among both alternatives, screw-retained prostheses present several advantages that could tip the balance, such as retrievability, need for minimal interocclusal space, and easier maintenance.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Survival and Marginal Bone Loss of Dental Implants Supporting Cad-Cam Angled Channel Restorations: A Split-Mouth Retrospective Study

2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objective The aim of this study was to determine whether the screw emergence angulation correction by computer-aided design (CAD)-computer-aided manufacturing (CAM) can influence implant survival and marginal bone stability. Materials and Methods This was a controlled split-mouth retrospective study of angled channel restorations. The dental implants supporting the prosthesis were divided into the following two groups: the first group (Group 1) included the implants that required screw channel angulation, while the second group (Group 2) included the implants that did not require this correction to screw the prosthesis to the implant. The main outcome variables were implant survival and marginal bone loss (MBL). Results A total of 68 dental implants placed in 22 patients were included in the final cohort. The mean follow-up time was 39.65 ± 15.20 months. None of the studied implants failed during the follow-up period and the mean MBL was − 0.29 ± 0.51 mm at the end of the follow-up. No statistical differences in the MBL were observed between the two groups of the study (-0.18 ± 0.51 and − 0.23 ± 0.58 mm, respectively). Conclusion The angulation of the screw channel with CAD-CAM technology resulted in good clinical outcomes and did not affect MBL. Thus, the angulated screw channel might be considered an alternative to face undesired screw emergencies. Future prospective clinical studies should confirm these results.

show abstract

Study on Oral Health–Related Quality of Life in Patients After Dental Implant Treatment with Patient-Reported Outcome

Cited by 9 publications

References 9 publications

Improving oral health‐related quality of life for a traumatic brain injury patient: A case report

Improving oral health‐related quality of life for a traumatic brain injury patient: A case report

Radiological Outcomes of Bone-Level and Tissue-Level Dental Implants: Systematic Review

Survival and Marginal Bone Loss of Dental Implants Supporting Cad-Cam Angled Channel Restorations: A Split-Mouth Retrospective Study

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About