Sanja Peršić1, Asja Čelebić. 1. Department of Prosthodontics, School of Dental Medicine, University of Zagreb, Gunduliceva 5, 10000, Zagreb, Croatia, persic@sfzg.hr.
Abstract
PURPOSE: The aim was to assess influence of different prosthodontic rehabilitation options on improvement of orofacial esthetics, chewing function (CF) and oral health-related quality of life. METHODS: Patients treated with 70 conventional complete dentures (CDs), 38 implant-supported mandibular complete dentures opposed to maxillary CDs, 56 conventional removable partial dentures, 15 implant-supported removable partial dentures, 25 conventional fixed partial dentures (FPDs) and 59 implant-supported fixed partial dentures (IFPDs) were included. The survey was conducted using the three questionnaires: the OHIP-CRO14, the Orofacial Esthetic Scale (OES-CRO) and the Chewing Function Questionnaire (CFQ), and administrated twice: at the baseline prior the therapy and 3 months after prosthodontic rehabilitation had been finished. RESULTS: The after-treatment scores were significantly better than the baseline scores (p < 0.001) for the OES, OHIP14 and CF questionnaires in all types of treatments. The two-factor ANOVA showed no significant difference for the OES after-treatment scores between different rehabilitation options and implant presence, but the OHIP14 and CFQ after-treatment scores were significantly better in FPD and IFPDs than in removable implant and conventional denture wearers. The score change was significantly higher in all implant removable denture patients for the OES, OHIP and CFQ. The lowest score change was registered in the FPD wearers. (p < 0.01). CONCLUSIONS: Removable denture implant patients most benefited from implant support, but IFPD and FPD had the best after-treatment scores. The assessed clinical parameters may help dentists in choice of the best rehabilitation option with the highest treatment effect.
PURPOSE: The aim was to assess influence of different prosthodontic rehabilitation options on improvement of orofacial esthetics, chewing function (CF) and oral health-related quality of life. METHODS:Patients treated with 70 conventional complete dentures (CDs), 38 implant-supported mandibular complete dentures opposed to maxillary CDs, 56 conventional removable partial dentures, 15 implant-supported removable partial dentures, 25 conventional fixed partial dentures (FPDs) and 59 implant-supported fixed partial dentures (IFPDs) were included. The survey was conducted using the three questionnaires: the OHIP-CRO14, the Orofacial Esthetic Scale (OES-CRO) and the Chewing Function Questionnaire (CFQ), and administrated twice: at the baseline prior the therapy and 3 months after prosthodontic rehabilitation had been finished. RESULTS: The after-treatment scores were significantly better than the baseline scores (p < 0.001) for the OES, OHIP14 and CF questionnaires in all types of treatments. The two-factor ANOVA showed no significant difference for the OES after-treatment scores between different rehabilitation options and implant presence, but the OHIP14 and CFQ after-treatment scores were significantly better in FPD and IFPDs than in removable implant and conventional denture wearers. The score change was significantly higher in all implant removable denture patients for the OES, OHIP and CFQ. The lowest score change was registered in the FPD wearers. (p < 0.01). CONCLUSIONS: Removable denture implant patients most benefited from implant support, but IFPD and FPD had the best after-treatment scores. The assessed clinical parameters may help dentists in choice of the best rehabilitation option with the highest treatment effect.
Authors: Miguel Simancas-Pallares; Mike T John; Swati Prodduturu; William A Rush; Christopher J Enstad; Patricia Lenton Journal: J Prosthodont Res Date: 2018-06-01 Impact factor: 4.642