Literature DB >> 27210034

Oral health-related quality of life changes after placement of immediately loaded single implants in healed alveolar ridges or extraction sockets: a 5-year prospective follow-up study.

Stefanie Raes1, Filiep Raes1, Lyndon Cooper2, Luis Giner Tarrida3, Stijn Vervaeke1, Jan Cosyn1,4, Hugo De Bruyn1,5.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVES: The impact of single implants on oral health-related quality of life (OHRQoL) is scarcely investigated, especially when combined with immediate placement and loading in extraction sockets. The aim was to describe prospectively the changes of OHRQoL with single implants placed in the esthetic zone in healed ridges or in extraction sockets after 5 years.
MATERIAL AND METHODS: Ninety-six patients, enrolled at three clinical centers, received 102 single implants placed in a healed ridge (n = 54 implants/50 patients) or in extraction sockets (n = 48 implants/46 patients). Implants were immediately provisionalized, and permanent crowns were cemented after 12 weeks. Oral health impact profile questionnaires (OHIP-14) were completed before surgery, after 1 (provisional crown), 6 (permanent crown), 12 and 60 months, respectively. The overall OHIP-14 score pertains to seven domains with two items each and was assessed on a Likert scale of 0-4 (0 = never and 4 = very often). The evolution of the total OHIP-14 score and changes within all OHIP domains over time and between groups were assessed with a linear mixed-effect model analysis.
RESULTS: After 5 years, overall implant survival was 98%. The total OHIP-14 score for both groups combined decreased from 0.50 at baseline to 0.17 at 6 months (P < 0.001), indicative of improvement. For both groups, this remained stable up to 5 years (P = 0.41). However, after 5 years, the total OHIP-14 score revealed a statistically significantly higher improvement in the healed group compared with the extraction group (P = 0.027).
CONCLUSION: Missing a single tooth in the maxillary esthetic zone leads to limited OHRQoL problems as reflected by a low overall OHIP score. However, OHRQoL improves less in the extraction group, reflecting that replacing a missing tooth is perceived as more beneficial than replacing a present tooth.
© 2016 John Wiley & Sons A/S. Published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Clinical research; Dental implants; Immediate loading; Immediate placement; OHIP-14; Patient centered outcomes; Single tooth

Mesh:

Year:  2016        PMID: 27210034     DOI: 10.1111/clr.12858

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Clin Oral Implants Res        ISSN: 0905-7161            Impact factor:   5.977


  8 in total

1.  Early bone formation around immediately loaded implants with nanostructured calcium-incorporated and machined surface: a randomized, controlled histologic and histomorphometric study in the human posterior maxilla.

Authors:  Francesco Guido Mangano; Giovanna Iezzi; Jamil Awad Shibli; Jefferson Trabach Pires; Giuseppe Luongo; Adriano Piattelli; Carlo Mangano
Journal:  Clin Oral Investig       Date:  2017-02-02       Impact factor: 3.573

2.  A 5-year prospective clinical trial on short implants (6 mm) for single tooth replacement in the posterior maxilla: immediate versus delayed loading.

Authors:  Mustafa Ayna; Bastian Wessing; Ralf Gutwald; Andreas Neff; Thomas Ziebart; Yahya Açil; Jörg Wiltfang; Aydin Gülses
Journal:  Odontology       Date:  2018-07-17       Impact factor: 2.634

3.  On the Cleanliness of Different Oral Implant Systems: A Pilot Study.

Authors:  Dirk U Duddeck; Tomas Albrektsson; Ann Wennerberg; Christel Larsson; Florian Beuer
Journal:  J Clin Med       Date:  2019-08-22       Impact factor: 4.241

Review 4.  A Systematic Review of Survival Rates of Osseointegrated Implants in Fully and Partially Edentulous Patients Following Immediate Loading.

Authors:  Massimo Del Fabbro; Tiziano Testori; Vladan Kekovic; Funda Goker; Margherita Tumedei; Hom-Lay Wang
Journal:  J Clin Med       Date:  2019-12-04       Impact factor: 4.241

5.  Immediately provisionalized tapered conical connection implants for single-tooth restorations in the maxillary esthetic zone: a 5-year prospective single-cohort multicenter analysis.

Authors:  Russell A Baer; Robert Nölken; Snjezana Colic; Guido Heydecke; Christine Mirzakhanian; Alexandra Behneke; Nikolaus Behneke; Edward Gottesman; Liliana Ottria; Alessandro Pozzi; Alexander Fügl; Werner Zechner
Journal:  Clin Oral Investig       Date:  2022-01-08       Impact factor: 3.573

6.  Immediate Loading of Implant-Supported Single Crowns after Conventional and Ultrasonic Implant Site Preparation: A Multicenter Randomized Controlled Clinical Trial.

Authors:  Claudio Stacchi; Teresa Lombardi; Domenico Baldi; Calogero Bugea; Antonio Rapani; Giuseppe Perinetti; Angelo Itri; David Carpita; Guido Audenino; Giuseppe Bianco; Simone Verardi; Stefano Carossa; Gianmario Schierano
Journal:  Biomed Res Int       Date:  2018-08-14       Impact factor: 3.411

7.  How peoples' ratings of dental implant treatment change over time?

Authors:  Carolina Machuca; Mario V Vettore; Peter G Robinson
Journal:  Qual Life Res       Date:  2020-01-06       Impact factor: 4.147

Review 8.  Dental Implants Inserted in Fresh Extraction Sockets versus Healed Sites: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Authors:  Adam Ibrahim; Bruno Ramos Chrcanovic
Journal:  Materials (Basel)       Date:  2021-12-20       Impact factor: 3.623

  8 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.