Patient satisfaction and oral health-related quality of life 10 years after implant placement

• DOI: 10.1186/s12903-020-01381-3
• Publication Date: 2021-01-14T12:04:27Z
• Authors: Yan Wang; Daniel Bäumer; Ann-Kathrin Ozga; Gerd Körner; Amelie Bäumer
• Keywords: Quality of life; Dental Implants; PIDAQ; Aesthetics; Patient satisfaction; RK1-715; Oral Health; Esthetics, Dental; 3. Good health; OHIP ; Patient satisfaction ; Aesthetics ; Dental Implants [MeSH] ; Humans [MeSH] ; Cross-Sectional Studies [MeSH] ; Esthetics, Dental [MeSH] ; Patient Satisfaction [MeSH] ; PIDAQ ; Dental Prosthesis, Implant-Supported [MeSH] ; Quality of life ; Clinical oral healthcare research ; Implants ; Quality of Life [MeSH] ; Oral Health [MeSH] ; Research Article; 03 medical and health sciences; Cross-Sectional Studies; 0302 clinical medicine; Patient Satisfaction; Dentistry; Quality of Life; Humans; Implants; Dental Prosthesis, Implant-Supported; OHIP; Research Article

Abstract Background Implant survival and implant success (freedom of biologic complications) are important factors in assessing the success of implant therapy. However, these factors are not the only determinants. Patients’ satisfaction also plays a very important role in daily practice. Therefore, the aim of this study was to assess patients’ satisfaction regarding function (phonetics, chewing comfort, stability, cleanability) and aesthetics in patients treated with XiVE and Frialite implants in a private periodontal practice ten years after implant placement. Furthermore, oral health-related quality of life (OHRQoL) was evaluated.

Methods Patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) regarding overall satisfaction, phonetics, chewing comfort, stability, cleanability, and aesthetics were examined on a Visual Analog Scale (VAS) 10 years ± 6 months after implant placement in a cross-sectional survey. OHRQoL and psychological impact were assessed via the Oral Health Impact Profile (OHIP) and Psychosocial Impact of Dental Aesthetics Questionnaire (PIDAQ). Potential influence of patient-related factors (age, gender, smoking, peri-implantitis, implant position, type of restoration) on VAS, OHRQoL and PIDAQ were investigated using regression analyses.

Results High satisfaction with implant-supported restorations was seen in all 95 patients ten years after implant placement. Mean VAS-score for general satisfaction with implant-supported restoration was 93.0% (SD ± 9.4, median: 96.3%, range 50.0–100%). Mean OHIP score was 11.3 (SD ± 10.8, median: 9.0, range 0–45), mean PIDAQ score 20.5 (SD ± 11.37, median: 17.0, range 0–52). A slight tendency that presence of a moderate/severe peri-implantitis lowers satisfaction could be detected (overall satisfaction: ordinal, p = 0.012, VAS, p = 0.026). Also, the factors age, implant position and type of restoration might have an impact on patient’s satisfaction.

Conclusions Patients restored with mostly fixed implant-supported restorations showed a very high patient satisfaction regarding function and aesthetics 10-year after implant placement. The presence of a moderate/severe peri-implantitis showed a slight tendency for influencing patient satisfaction. Due to the cross-sectional design results have to be interpreted with care.