AIM: This pilot study evaluated patients' experience of oral surgical and prosthetic procedures as well as their opinions regarding function, aesthetics, comfort, and satisfaction with treatment outcomes. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Forty-nine subjects treated with oral implants completed questionnaires comprising 44 questions. Three questionnaires were used related to implant-supported single-tooth, fixed implant-supported prostheses and implant-retained overdentures. The questions related to demographic data (age, sex, employment, marital status and educational level), the source of information, the reason they underwent implant treatment, the discomfort related to all phases of treatment, and their functional and aesthetic satisfaction. RESULTS: Most of the patients (53.8%) were employed and had received a high school certificate or a university diploma. Patients heard about implants from various sources, including referring dentists (55.8%), relatives and friends (23.1%), and television, radio and the Internet (17.3%). The main reasons for choosing implant treatment were restoring lost teeth (35,5%), following dentist's advice (33,3%), improving stability of the removable denture (15.4%), eating habits (13.5%) and aesthetics (1.9%). Most patients considered that the procedure took a long time (44.2%) but was not traumatic (62.5%). Pain was almost absent in most cases (64.5%) and swelling, when present, was generally moderate (48.1%) and seldom was marked (17.3%). Patients were very satisfied about the aesthetics (82.7%) and function (94.2%), and considered the implant prosthesis to be part of themselves (84.6%). Most of the patients considered the implant prostheses to be easy to clean (73.1%), and would repeat the treatment if necessary (86.5%) and recommend it to other people (94.2%). CONCLUSIONS: Although the present study is limited by the small sample, the outcomes suggest that oral implant rehabilitation meets patients' needs and aesthetic demands.
AIM: This pilot study evaluated patients' experience of oral surgical and prosthetic procedures as well as their opinions regarding function, aesthetics, comfort, and satisfaction with treatment outcomes. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Forty-nine subjects treated with oral implants completed questionnaires comprising 44 questions. Three questionnaires were used related to implant-supported single-tooth, fixed implant-supported prostheses and implant-retained overdentures. The questions related to demographic data (age, sex, employment, marital status and educational level), the source of information, the reason they underwent implant treatment, the discomfort related to all phases of treatment, and their functional and aesthetic satisfaction. RESULTS: Most of the patients (53.8%) were employed and had received a high school certificate or a university diploma. Patients heard about implants from various sources, including referring dentists (55.8%), relatives and friends (23.1%), and television, radio and the Internet (17.3%). The main reasons for choosing implant treatment were restoring lost teeth (35,5%), following dentist's advice (33,3%), improving stability of the removable denture (15.4%), eating habits (13.5%) and aesthetics (1.9%). Most patients considered that the procedure took a long time (44.2%) but was not traumatic (62.5%). Pain was almost absent in most cases (64.5%) and swelling, when present, was generally moderate (48.1%) and seldom was marked (17.3%). Patients were very satisfied about the aesthetics (82.7%) and function (94.2%), and considered the implant prosthesis to be part of themselves (84.6%). Most of the patients considered the implant prostheses to be easy to clean (73.1%), and would repeat the treatment if necessary (86.5%) and recommend it to other people (94.2%). CONCLUSIONS: Although the present study is limited by the small sample, the outcomes suggest that oral implant rehabilitation meets patients' needs and aesthetic demands.
Authors: Bjarni E Pjetursson; Ioannis Karoussis; Walter Bürgin; Urs Brägger; Niklaus P Lang Journal: Clin Oral Implants Res Date: 2005-04 Impact factor: 5.977
Authors: E M Boerrigter; M E Geertman; R P Van Oort; J Bouma; G M Raghoebar; M A van Waas; M A van't Hof; G Boering; W Kalk Journal: Br J Oral Maxillofac Surg Date: 1995-10 Impact factor: 1.651
Authors: Mohammad Khursheed Alam; Shaifulizan Abdul Rahman; Shaifulizan Abdul Rahaman; Rehana Basri; Tiffany Tang Sing Yi; Justin Wong Si-Jie; Soumendra Saha Journal: PLoS One Date: 2015-10-14 Impact factor: 3.240