Literature DB >> 29508545

Quality of life assessment of patients utilizing orbital implant-supported prostheses.

Fernando Moreno de Oliveira1, Rodrigo Salazar-Gamarra1, David Öhman2, Ulf Nannmark2, Vanessa Pecorari1, Luciano Lauria Dib1.   

Abstract

STATEMENT OF PROBLEM: Evaluate the effect of orbital prosthesis retained by implants through a specific quality of life (QOL) questionnaire provides important information on patients QOL, great incentive for the multidisciplinary team and public health support to continue work in this area.
PURPOSE: The objective of the study was to evaluate patient satisfaction with orbital implant-supported prostheses using an adapted quality of life questionnaire.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: Forty five patients using orbital implant-supported prostheses for a period ranging from six to 120 months. The subjects answered a questionnaire that consisted of 10 questions covering appearance, retention, conspicuousness, self-confidence, difficulty of placement, difficulty of removal, cleaning, limitation of activities, discomfort of tissues, and recommendation of the method to other patients. Answers were expressed using a visual 100-mm scale. The arithmetic mean of the responses was converted into a percentage to represent the satisfaction index.
RESULTS: Patients demonstrated a high level of satisfaction on all items, with the lowest rate being for aesthetics and the highest being for recommending the method to other patients. High satisfaction rates regarding the placement and removal of the prosthesis, discomfort to the tissues, and cleaning suggest the ease of handling of the prosthesis. High satisfaction with retention, self-confidence, conspicuousness of the prosthesis, and limitation of activities indicated an association with a better social life.
CONCLUSIONS: The results showed that use of bone anchorage technique of extraoral prostheses provided a high level of satisfaction among patients, confirming that osseointegrated implants are a very important resource for the rehabilitation of orbital deformities.
© 2018 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

Entities:  

Keywords:  extraoral implants; facial prosthesis; quality of life

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2018        PMID: 29508545     DOI: 10.1111/cid.12602

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Clin Implant Dent Relat Res        ISSN: 1523-0899            Impact factor:   3.932


  2 in total

1.  Prosthetic Rehabilitation of a Maxillofacial Defect with Silicone Orbital Prosthesis: A Simplified Technique.

Authors:  Naeem Ahmad; Mrinalini Moghe; Naziya Ayyub Talati; Aanshika Tiwari; Ahmed Mohammed Saaduddin Sapri; Deema Kamal; Adiba Abdul Moin; Taseer Bashir
Journal:  J Pharm Bioallied Sci       Date:  2022-07-13

Review 2.  Outcome measures in facial prosthesis research: A systematic review.

Authors:  Rachael Y Jablonski; Benjamin J Veale; Trevor J Coward; Andrew J Keeling; Chris Bojke; Sue H Pavitt; Brian R Nattress
Journal:  J Prosthet Dent       Date:  2021-02-10       Impact factor: 3.426

  2 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.