Esben B Øzhayat1, Klaus Gotfredsen1. 1. Section of Oral Rehabilitation, Department of Odontology, Faculty of Health and Medical Sciences, University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Denmark.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To compare the patient-reported effect of treatment with implant-supported fixed prosthesis (ISFP) and fixed dental prosthesis (FDP) in patients with a small number of tooth losses to replace. METHODS: From a population of 155 patients receiving either ISFP or FDP, 68 patients were matched in pairs based on gender, number of teeth replaced, zone of replacement, age and number of remaining teeth. The patient-reported effect was prospectively obtained by measuring change in the short-form oral health impact (OHIP-14) from before to one month after treatment. Effect size (ES), standardised response mean (SRM) and a minimal important difference of two units were applied to estimate the magnitude of the change. RESULTS: Both the ISFP and FDP groups decreased significantly in OHIP-14 after treatment (P < .01). The change was not significantly different between the ISFP and FDP groups. The magnitude of the change was for both treatments moderate and slightly higher in the ISFP group (ES = 0.52 and SRM = 0.58) than in the FDP group (ES = 0.48 and SRM = 0.47). Applying the minimal important difference showed that 23 participants in the ISFP group and 21 in the FDP group had good effect. CONCLUSIONS: The patient-reported effect of treatment with ISFP or FDP was similar, clinically meaningful and of moderate magnitude in patients with a small number tooth losses to replace.
OBJECTIVES: To compare the patient-reported effect of treatment with implant-supported fixed prosthesis (ISFP) and fixed dental prosthesis (FDP) in patients with a small number of tooth losses to replace. METHODS: From a population of 155 patients receiving either ISFP or FDP, 68 patients were matched in pairs based on gender, number of teeth replaced, zone of replacement, age and number of remaining teeth. The patient-reported effect was prospectively obtained by measuring change in the short-form oral health impact (OHIP-14) from before to one month after treatment. Effect size (ES), standardised response mean (SRM) and a minimal important difference of two units were applied to estimate the magnitude of the change. RESULTS: Both the ISFP and FDP groups decreased significantly in OHIP-14 after treatment (P < .01). The change was not significantly different between the ISFP and FDP groups. The magnitude of the change was for both treatments moderate and slightly higher in the ISFP group (ES = 0.52 and SRM = 0.58) than in the FDP group (ES = 0.48 and SRM = 0.47). Applying the minimal important difference showed that 23 participants in the ISFP group and 21 in the FDP group had good effect. CONCLUSIONS: The patient-reported effect of treatment with ISFP or FDP was similar, clinically meaningful and of moderate magnitude in patients with a small number tooth losses to replace.