Quality of life in patients rehabilitated with implant-supported prostheses

  • Anderson Nicolly Fernandes-Costa
  • Micaella Pollyana Silva do Nascimento Costa
  • Tâmara Cabral Rodrigues
  • Karyna de Melo Menezes
  • Patrícia dos Santos Calderon
  • Bruno César de Vasconcelos Gurgel

Abstract

Aim: To evaluate the impact of rehabilitation with implant- supported prostheses on the quality of life (QoL) of patients. Methods: The OHIP-14 questionnaire was applied to 114 patients and information regarding gender, age, type of prosthesis and time of use were obtained. To analyze whether there were any statistically significant differences between the mean scores of the seven parameters of the OHIP-14, the Mann-Whitney and Kruskal-Wallis test were used. All data were evaluated using a significance level of 5%. Results: Patients were predominanty female (78.9%) and single crowns users (41.2%). Patients reported a good QoL (3.07). Psychological discomfort and physical pain were the worst dimensions evaluated by the subjects. Results differed significantly (p<0.05) only for functional limitations and psychological discomfort in the different genders. Conclusions: Patients presented a high level of quality of life, regardless of age, duration of use and the type of prosthesis used. However, women presented more psychological distress and functional limitations than men.

References

1.Cakir O, Kazancioglu KO, Celik G, Deger S, Ak G. Evaluation of the eficacy of mandibular conventional and implant prostheses in a group of turkish patients: a quality of life study. J Prosthodont. 2014 Jul;23(5):390-6. doi: 10.1111/jopr.12120.
2.Kuoppala R, Näpänkangas R, Raustia A. Quality of Life of Patients Treated With Implant-Supported Mandibular Overdentures Evaluated With the Oral Health Impact Profile (OH¦P–14): a Survey of 58 Patients. J Oral Maxillofac Res. 2013 Jul 1;4(2):e4. doi: 10.5037/jomr.2013.4204.
3.Okonski P, Mierzwinska–Nastalska E, Janicka–Kostrzewa J. Implant supported dentures: an estimation of chewing eficiency. Gerodontology. 2011 Mar;28(1):58–61. doi: 10.1111/j.1741–2358.2009.00303.x.
4.Cibirka RM, Razzoog M, Lang BR. Critical evaluation of patient responses to dental implant therapy. J Prosthet Dent. 1997 Dec;78(6):574-81.
5.Goiato MC, Torcato LB, dos Santos DM, Moreno A, Falcon-Antenucci RM, Dekon SFC. Quality of life and satisfaction of patients wearing implant–supported fixed partial denture: a cross– sectional survey of patients from Araçatuba city, Brazil. Clin Oral Impl Res. 2015 Jun;26(6):701-8. doi: 10.1111/clr.12372.
6.World Organization Health. WHOQOL: measuring quality of life. Geneva: World Organization Health; 1997.
7.Jansson H, Wahlin A, Johansson V, Åkerman S, Lundegren N, Isberg PE, et al. Impact of periodontal disease experience on oral health–related quality of life. J Periodontol. 2014 Mar;85(3):438–45. doi: 10.1902/jop.2013.130188.
8.Sischo L, Broder HL. Oral health–related quality of life: what, why, how, and future implications.. J Dent Res. 2011;90(11):1264-70. doi: 10.1177/0022034511399918.
9.Mcgrath CM, Bedi R. A national study of the importance of oral health to life quality to inform scales of oral health related quality of life. Qual Life Res. 2004 May;13(4):813-8.
10.Bramanti E, Matacena G, Cecchetti F, Arcuri C, Cicciù M. Oral health-related quality of life in partially edentulous patients before and after implant therapy: a 2-year longitudinal study. Oral Implantol (Rome). 2013 Oct;6(2):37-42.
11.Slade GD, Spencer AJ. Development and evaluation of the Oral Health Impact Profile. Community Dent Health 1994;11(1):3-11.
12.Cohen-Carneiro F, Souza-Santos R, Rebelo MAB. Quality of life related to oral health: contribution from social factors. Cienc Saude Colet. 2011;16 Supl 1:1007-15.
13.Slade GD. Derivation and validation of a short–form oral health impact profile. Community Dent Oral Epidemiol. 1997 Aug;25(4):284-90.
14.Berretin–Felix G, Nary Filho H, Padovani CR, Machado WM. A Longitudinal study of quality of life of elderly with mandibular implantsupported fixed prostheses. Clin Oral Impl Res. 2008 Jul;19(7):704–8. doi: 10.1111/j.1600–0501.2007.01451.x.
15.Preciado A, Del Río J, Lynch CD, Castillo-Oyagüe R. Impact of various screwed implant prostheses on oral health-related quality of life as measured with the QoLIP-10 and OHIP-14 scales: a cross-sectional study. J Dent. 2013 Dec;41(12):1196-207. doi: 10.1016/j.jdent.2013.08.026.
16.Azevedo MS, Goettems ML, Torriani DD, Demarco FF. Factors associated with dental fluorosis in school children in southern Brazil: a cross-sectional study. Braz Oral Res. 2014;28(1):1-7. pii: S1806-83242014000100225.
17.Geckili O, Bilhan H, Mumcu E, Dayan C, Yabul A, Tuncer N. Comparison of patient satisfaction, quality of life, and bite force between elderly edentulous patients wearing mandibular two implant- supported overdentures and conventional complete dentures after 4 years. Spec Care Dentist. 2012 Jul–Aug;32(4):136–41. doi: 10.1111/j.1754–4505.2012.00258.x.
18.Thomason JM. The use of mandibular implant-retained overdentures improve patient satisfaction and quality of life. J Evid Based Dent Pract. 2010 Mar;10(1):61-3. doi: 10.1016/j.jebdp.2009.11.022.
19.Vallittu PK, Vallittu AS, Lassila VP. Dental aesthetics: a survey of attitudes in different groups of patients. J Dent 1996 Sep;24(5):335-8.
20.Strajnic L, Bulatovic D, Stancic I, Živkovic R. Self–perception and satisfaction with dental appearance and aesthetics with respect to patients’ age, gender, and level of education. Srp Arh Celok Lek. 2016;144(11-12):580-9.
21.Gates WD 3rd, Cooper LF, Sanders AE, Reside GJ, De Kok IJ. The effect of implant-supported removable partial dentures on oral health quality of life. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2014 Feb;25(2):207-13. doi: 10.1111/clr.12085.
22.Heydecke G, Boudrias P, Awad MA, De Albuquerque RF, Lund JP, Feine JS. Within subject comparisons of maxillary fixed and removable implant prostheses. Patient satisfaction and choice of prosthesis. Clin Oral Impl Res 2003 Feb;14(1):125-30.
23.Sadowsky SJ. The implant-supported prosthesis for the edentulous arch: design considerations. J Prost Dent 1997 Jul;78(1):28-33.
24.Kim Y, Park SY, Park JY, Jeong YJ, Kim J, Oh SH et al. Economic Evaluation of Dental Implants in Korea. Seoul, Korea: National Evidence-based healthcare Collaboration Agency; 2011.
25.Emami E, de Souza RF, Bernier J, Rompre P, Feine JS. Patient perceptions of the mandibular three-implant overdenture: a practice-based study. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2015 Jun;26(6):639-43. doi: 10.1111/clr.12351.
26.Preciado A, DelRio J, Lynch CD, Castillo–Oyague R. A new, short, specific questionnaire (QoLIP–10) for evaluating the oral health-related quality of life of implant-retained overdenture and hybrid prosthesis wearers. J Dent 2013;41:753-63. doi: 10.1016/j.jdent.2013.06.014.
Published
2017-10-24
How to Cite
FERNANDES-COSTA, Anderson Nicolly et al. Quality of life in patients rehabilitated with implant-supported prostheses. Brazilian Journal of Oral Sciences, [S.l.], p. e17080, oct. 2017. ISSN 1677-3225. Available at: <https://www.fop.unicamp.br/bjos/index.php/bjos/article/view/180>. Date accessed: 20 july 2019. doi: https://doi.org/10.20396/bjos.v16i1.8651059.
Section
Original Research