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