, Volume 107, Issue 3, pp 383–392 | Cite as

Changes in oral health-related quality of life after three different strategies of implant therapy: a clinical trial

  • Javier MonteroEmail author
  • Javier Dolz
  • Francisco-Javier Silvestre
  • Javier Flores
  • Abraham Dib
  • Cristina Gómez-Polo
Original Article


This research aims to evaluate changes in Oral Health-related Quality of Life (OHQoL) by means of the Oral Impacts on Daily Performances (OIDP) of patients treated with three distinct implant strategies. This clinical trial consisted of an oral examination and a questionnaire-based interview carried out before and after the definitive prosthetic rehabilitation in a consecutive sample of patients requiring dental implants. According to the clinical diagnosis and patient preference, patients were assigned to the one of the following groups: the conventional group (CGCL; n = 40), where implants were inserted without guiding and conventionally loaded; to the guided surgery but conventional loading group (GSCL; n = 35); or to the guided surgery and immediate loading group (GSIL; n = 29). At baseline, the OHQoL was significantly greater among those assigned to CGCL (2.4 ± 1.3) than those assigned to GSCL (3.3 ± 1.3), which were both greater than those patients assigned to GSIL (4.6 ± 2.0). After implant therapy, the oral well-being was significantly better than at baseline, and patient satisfaction was greater when the implants were loaded immediately (8.7 ± 1.1) than if the prosthetic rehabilitation was delayed (8.3 ± 1.1). In the GSIL group, the effect size of the OIDP exceeded the threshold value of 0.8 for all of the OIDP domains and for the total OIDP score and patient satisfaction. A global improvement in the OHQoL scores and patient satisfaction was observed after implant therapy, but the change was markedly greater in the GSIL group.


Oral health-related quality of life Dental implant Immediate loading Delayed loading Guided surgery 



This research was part of the doctoral dissertation of the second author (J Dolz), leaded by the third author (JF Silvestre) at the University of Valencia. The research group named Avances en Salud Oral from the University of Salamanca supported the publication of this study.

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Ethical approval

All procedures performed in this study were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.

Informed consent

Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study. There were no financial, economic, or professional interests that influenced the design, execution, or presentation of this work.


  1. 1.
    Zarb GA, Schmitt A. The longitudinal clinical effectiveness of osseointegrated dental implants: The Toronto study. Part II: the prosthetic results. J Prosthet Dent. 1990;64:53–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Brennan M, Houston F, O’Sullivan M, O’Connell B. Patient satisfaction and oral health-related quality of life outcomes of implant overdentures and fixed complete dentures. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2010;25:791–800.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Strassburger C, Heydecke G, Kerschbaum T. Influence of prosthetic and implant therapy on satisfaction and quality of life: a systematic literature review. Part 1–Characteristics of the studies. Int J Prosthodont. 2004;17:83–93.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Locker D. Patient-based assessment of the outcomes of implant therapy: a review of the literature. Int J Prosthodont. 1998;11:453–61.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    McGrath C, Lam O, Lang N. An evidence-based review of patient-reported outcome measures in dental implant research among dentate subjects. J Clin Periodontol. 2012;39:193–201.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Strassburger C, Kerschbaum T, Heydecke G. Influence of implant and conventional prostheses on satisfaction and quality of life: a literature review. Part 2: qualitative analysis and evaluation of the studies. Int J Prosthodont. 2006;19:339–48.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Brånemark PI, Adell R, Breine U, Hansson BO, Lindström J, Ohlsson A. Intra-osseous anchorage of dental prostheses. I. Experimental studies. Scand J Plast Reconstr Surg. 1969;3:81–100.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Esposito M, Grusovin MG, Maghaireh H, Worthington HV. Interventions for replacing missing teeth: different times for loading dental implants. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2013;28:CD003878.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    van Steenberghe D, Glauser R, Blombäck U, Andersson M, Schutyser F, Pettersson A, et al. A computed tomographic scan-derived customized surgical template and fixed prosthesis for flapless surgery and immediate loading of implants in fully edentulous maxillae: a prospective multicenter study. Clin Implant DentRelat Res. 2005;7:111-20.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Fortin T, Bosson JL, Isidori M, Blanchet E. Effect of flapless surgery on pain experienced in implant placement using an image-guided system. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2006;21:298–304.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Cannizzaro G, Leone M, Esposito M. Immediate versus early loading of two implants placed with a flapless technique supporting mandibular bar-retained overdentures: a single-blinded, randomised controlled clinical trial. Eur J Oral Implantol. 2008;1:33–43.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Cannizzaro G, Torchio C, Leone M, Esposito M. Immediate versus early loading of flapless-placed implants supporting maxillary full-arch prostheses: a randomised controlled clinical trial. Eur J Oral Implantol. 2008;1:127–39.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Vercruyssen M, Cox C, Naert I, Jacobs R, Teughels W, Quirynen M. Accuracy and patient-centered outcome variables in guided implant surgery: a RCT comparing immediate with delayed loading. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2016;27:427–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Vercruyssen M, van de Wiele G, Teughels W, Naert I, Jacobs R, Quirynen M. Implant- and patient-centred outcomes of guided surgery, a 1-year follow-up: An RCT comparing guided surgery with conventional implant placement. J Clin Periodontol. 2014;41:1154–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Michalakis KX, Hirayama H, Garefis PD. Cement-retained versus screw-retained implant restorations: a critical review. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2003;18:719–28.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Lekholm U, Zarb GA. Tissue-integrated prostheses. In: Branemark PI, Zarb GA, Albrektsson T, editors. Tissue-integrated prostheses: osseointegration in clinical dentistry. Chicago: Quintessence. 1985; pp. 199–209.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Montero J, Bravo M, Albaladejo A. Validation of two complementary oral-health related quality of life indicators (OIDP and OSS 0–10) in two qualitatively distinct samples of the Spanish population. Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2008;6:101.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Locker D. Issues in measuring change in self-perceived oral health status. Community Dent Oral Epidemiol. 1998;26:41–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Kazis LE, Anderson JJ, Meenan RF. Effect sizes for interpreting changes in health status. Med Care. 1989;27:178-89.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Hultin M, Svensson KG, Trulsson M. Clinical advantages of computer-guided implant placement: a systematic review. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2012;23:124-35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Heydecke G, Locker D, Awad MA, Lund JP, Feine JS. Oral and general health-related quality of life with conventional and implant dentures. Community Dent Oral Epidemiol. 2003;31:161–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Dolz J, Silvestre FJ, Montero J. Changes in general and oral health-related quality of life in immediate or conventionally loaded dental implants: a nonrandomized clinical trial. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2014;29:391–401.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Molina A, Sanz-Sánchez I, Martín C, Blanco J, Sanz M. The effect of one-time abutment placement on interproximal bone levels and peri-implant soft tissues: a prospective randomized clinical trial. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2017;28:443–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Covani U, Ricci M, D’Ambrosio N, Quaranta A, Barone A. Changes in soft tissues around immediate full-arch rehabilitations: a prospective study. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2013;24:122–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Feine JS, Awad MA, Lund JP. The impact of patient preference on the design and interpretation of clinical trials. Commun Dent Oral Epidemiol. 1998;26:70–4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Awad MA, Lund JP, Dufresne E, Feine JS. Comparing the efficacy of mandibular implant-retained overdentures and conventional dentures among middle-aged edentulous patients: satisfaction and functional assessment. Int J Prosthodont. 2003;16:117–22.Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Awad MA, Lund JP, Shapiro SH, Locker D, Klemetti E, Chehade A, et al. Oral health status and treatment satisfaction with mandibular implant overdentures and conventional dentures: a randomized clinical trial in a senior population. Int J Prosthodont. 2003;16:390–6.Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Tang L, Lund JP, Taché R, Clokie CM, Feine JS. A within-subject comparison of mandibular long-bar and hybrid implant-supported prostheses: psychometric evaluation and patient preference. J Dent Res. 1997;76:1675–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Michaud PL, de Grandmont P, Feine JS, Emami E. Measuring patient-based outcomes: is treatment satisfaction associated with oral health-related quality of life? J Dent. 2012;40:624–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Thomas MV, Puleo DA. Infection, inflammation, and bone regeneration: a paradoxical relationship. J Dent Res. 2011;90:1052–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Pozzi A, Tallarico M, Marchetti M, Scarfò B, Esposito M. Computer-guided versus free-hand placement of immediately loaded dental implants: 1-year post-loading results of a multicentre randomised controlled trial. Eur J Oral Implantol. 2014;7:229–42.Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Arisan V, Karabuda CZ, Ozdemir T. Implant surgery using bone- and mucosa-supported stereolithographic guides in totally edentulous jaws: surgical and post-operative outcomes of computer-aided vs. standard techniques. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2010;21:980–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The Society of The Nippon Dental University 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.School of Dentistry, Clínica Odontológica, Facultad de MedicinaUniversity of SalamancaSalamancaSpain
  2. 2.Stomatology Department of Provincial Hospital of CastellónCastellón de la PlanaSpain
  3. 3.Stomatology of Faculty of Medicine and DentistryUniversity of ValenciaValenciaSpain
  4. 4.School of DentistryUniversity of SalamancaSalamancaSpain

Personalised recommendations