Ali Orkun Topçu1, Nermin Yamalik, Güliz N Güncü, Tolga F Tözüm, Hakan El, Serdar Uysal, Nur Hersek. 1. *Specialist, Department of Periodontology, Faculty of Dentistry, Hacettepe University, Ankara, Turkey. †Professor, Department of Periodontology, Faculty of Dentistry, Hacettepe University, Ankara, Turkey. ‡Associate Professor, Department of Periodontics, College of dentistry, University of Illinois at Chicago, Chicago, IL. §Associate Professor, Department of Orthodontics, Faculty of Dentistry, Hacettepe University, Ankara, Turkey. ¶Associate Professor, Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Radiology, Faculty of Dentistry, Hacettepe University, Ankara, Turkey. ‖Professor, Department of Prosthodontics, Faculty of Dentistry, Hacettepe University, Ankara, Turkey.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: The present study aimed at evaluating both the implant site-related and patient-based factors with the potential to affect the extent of patients' satisfaction and also their perceptions regarding dental implant treatment. Potential differences between the esthetic evaluations of dental patients and dental specialists were also considered. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Implant-supported fixed prosthesis (n = 164) in 264 anterior esthetic implant sites were included. Patients' satisfaction, esthetic considerations, and perceptions toward dental implants, were evaluated by both Oral Health Impact Profile-14 (OHIP-14) questionnaire and visual analog scale. Pink Esthetic Score/White Esthetic Score were used for the professional esthetic evaluations of dental specialists. RESULTS: Overall patient satisfaction was high (87.42 ± 11.86). Compared with implant supported single-tooth restorations, patients with implant-supported bridges had lower OHIP scores (P = 0.001) and were relatively less satisfied with particular aspects of dental implant treatment (eg, cleanability, phonetics, surgical discomfort, and pretreatment information). Generally, type of prosthesis, history of soft/hard tissue augmentation, and reason for tooth loss had a clear impact on the extent of patients' satisfaction, esthetic considerations regarding treatment outcome, and their perceptions toward dental implant treatment (P < 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: Fixed implant-supported restorations generally provide with high levels of satisfaction and oral health-related quality of life.
OBJECTIVES: The present study aimed at evaluating both the implant site-related and patient-based factors with the potential to affect the extent of patients' satisfaction and also their perceptions regarding dental implant treatment. Potential differences between the esthetic evaluations of dental patients and dental specialists were also considered. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Implant-supported fixed prosthesis (n = 164) in 264 anterior esthetic implant sites were included. Patients' satisfaction, esthetic considerations, and perceptions toward dental implants, were evaluated by both Oral Health Impact Profile-14 (OHIP-14) questionnaire and visual analog scale. Pink Esthetic Score/White Esthetic Score were used for the professional esthetic evaluations of dental specialists. RESULTS: Overall patient satisfaction was high (87.42 ± 11.86). Compared with implant supported single-tooth restorations, patients with implant-supported bridges had lower OHIP scores (P = 0.001) and were relatively less satisfied with particular aspects of dental implant treatment (eg, cleanability, phonetics, surgical discomfort, and pretreatment information). Generally, type of prosthesis, history of soft/hard tissue augmentation, and reason for tooth loss had a clear impact on the extent of patients' satisfaction, esthetic considerations regarding treatment outcome, and their perceptions toward dental implant treatment (P < 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: Fixed implant-supported restorations generally provide with high levels of satisfaction and oral health-related quality of life.
Authors: Marija Čandrlić; Željka Perić Kačarević; Zrinka Ivanišević; Matej Tomas; Aleksandar Včev; Dario Faj; Marko Matijević Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2020-12-29 Impact factor: 3.390