ABSTRACT
Background:
The concept of success is typically established by the researcher or the practitioner rather than the patient, who has the greatest stake in the outcome of the prosthodontics therapy.
Aim:
To assess patient satisfaction and oral health-related quality of life (OHRQoL) in following full mouth rehabilitation with implant-supported prostheses (ISP).
Methods and Materials:
Thirty-two patients who underwent full mouth rehabilitation with ISP were included in this study. The Oral Health Impact Profile-14 (OHIP-14) questionnaire was used for the assessment of patient satisfaction and OHRQoL following full mouth rehabilitation with ISP.
Results:
The functional limitation among study participants before, 1 month, and 3 months after ISP was 2.1 ± 1.3, 1.5 ± 0.8, and 1.4 ± 0.9, respectively. There was a significant reduction in functional limitation, psychological disability, and social disability before and 3 months after ISP.
Conclusion:
There is a significant improvement in patient satisfaction and OHRQoL in following full mouth rehabilitation with ISP.
KEYWORDS: Full mouth rehabilitation, implant-supported prosthesis, patient satisfaction
INTRODUCTION
Psychosocial reactions, including feeling anxious, feeling insecure, low self-worth, and introversion, frequently occur when a patient’s expectations are not met by the prosthodontics treatment; these reactions have a detrimental impact on the patient’s quality of life. Therefore, it is extremely crucial to evaluate prosthetic treatments using a more patient-centered approach.[1,2,3]
However, constraints in measuring the extent of disarray, annoyance, and impairment associated with oral problems have hindered the ability of dental professionals and academics to assess oral health. According to technical definitions, a dental restoration treatment is successful if it maintains its place and requires no intervention for the entire observation time. However, the concept of success is typically established by the researcher or the practitioner rather than the patient, who has the greatest stake in the outcome of the therapy.[4,5,6] The Oral Health Impact Profile-14 (OHIP-14), a condensed version of OHIP-49, gauges respondents’ opinions of how oral health issues affect their general well-being. Currently, a scientifically validated approach to assess self-perception and improvements in the oral health-related quality of life (OHRQoL) of patients receiving prosthetics on implants is the use of validated questionnaires.[7,8,9] This study has been conducted to assess patient satisfaction and OHRQoL in following full mouth rehabilitation with implant-supported prostheses (ISP).
METHODS AND MATERIALS
Thirty-two patients who underwent full mouth rehabilitation with ISP were included in this study. Patients having a history of medications for psychological disorders were excluded from the study. OHIP-14 Questionnaire was used for the assessment of patient satisfaction and OHRQoL following full mouth rehabilitation with ISP (IEC- NHDC&RI/2023/FAC/OMDR.21/SS-11-ECC).
Seven domains were intended to be covered by this questionnaire: handicap, physical discomfort, psychological discomfort, functional limitation, and social and psychological disabilities. There were two questions in each category, for a total of 14. One interviewer interviewed in the following manner: after reading the questions aloud to the patient, the interviewer presented them the card with the objective answer choices ranked from 1 to 5, where 1 meant never, 2 meant seldom, 3 meant sometimes, 4 meant frequently, and 5 meant always. The averages and standard deviations of the responses to the related questions were computed for every category.
Statistical analysis
For each category, the mean and standard deviation of the answers to the relevant questions were calculated. Through the use of the Kruskal-Wallis test, the data for each category were statistically compared before, one month, and three months after the installation of the ISP.
RESULTS
The functional limitation among study participants before, 1 month, and 3 months after ISP was 2.1 ± 1.3, 1.5 ± 0.8, and 1.4 ± 0.9, respectively. There was a significant reduction in functional limitation before and 3 months after ISP (P = 0.0236). The physical pain among study participants before, 1 month, and 3 months after ISP was 3.1 ± 1.5, 1.4 ± 0.6, and 1.2 ± 0.4, respectively. There was a significant reduction in physical pain before and 3 months after ISP (P < 0.0001). There was a significant reduction in psychological discomfort before and 3 months after ISP (P < 0.0001).
The physical disability among study participants before, 1 month, and 3 months after ISP was 2.6 ± 1.7, 1.3 ± 0.6, and 1.1 ± 0.1, respectively. There was a significant reduction in physical disability before and 3 months after ISP (P < 0.0001). The psychological disability among study participants before, 1 month, and 3 months after ISP was 3.0 ± 1.7, 1.4 ± 0.8, and 1.1 ± 0.3, respectively. There was a significant reduction in psychological disability before and 3 months after ISP (P < 0.0001). The social disability among study participants before, 1 month, and 3 months after ISP was 1.8 ± 1.3, 1.1 ± 0.1, and 1.1 ± 0.1, respectively. There was a significant reduction in social disability before and 3 months after ISP (P < 0.0001) [Table 1].
Table 1.
Responses of study participants against questions of different categories of OHIP-14 questionnaire for three assessment durations in the form of mean (SD)
| Functional limitation Mean (SD) | Physical pain Mean (SD) | Psychological discomfort Mean (SD) | Physical disability Mean (SD) | Psychological disability Mean (SD) | Social disability Mean (SD) | Handicap Mean (SD) | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Categories | |||||||
| Before | 2.1 (1.3)x | 3.1 (1.5)x | 3.2 (1.7)x | 2.6 (1.7)x | 3.0 (1.7)x | 1.8 (1.3)x | 1.7 (1.3)x |
| 1 month after | 1.5 (0.8)xy | 1.4 (0.6)y | 1.5 (0.7)y | 1.3 (0.6)y | 1.4 (0.8)y | 1.1 (0.1)y | 1.1 (0.1)y |
| 3 months after | 1.4 (0.9)y | 1.2 (0.4)y | 1.1 (0.3)y | 1.1 (0.1)y | 1.1 (0.3)y | 1.1 (0.1)y | 1.1 (0.1)y |
| P | 0.0236 | <0.0001* | <0.0001* | <0.0001* | <0.0001* | 0.0002* | 0.0005* |
Different letters at superscript indicated statistically significant observations, while similar letters at superscript indicate statistically non-significant observations. *Represents statistically significant
DISCUSSION
This study has been conducted to assess patient satisfaction and OHRQoL in following full mouth rehabilitation with ISP.
The functional limitation among study participants before, 1 month, and 3 months after ISP was 2.1 ± 1.3, 1.5 ± 0.8, and 1.4 ± 0.9, respectively. There was a significant reduction in functional limitation before and 3 months after ISP (P = 0.0236). The physical pain among study participants before, 1 month, and 3 months after ISP was 3.1 ± 1.5, 1.4 ± 0.6, and 1.2 ± 0.4, respectively. There was a significant reduction in physical pain before and 3 months after ISP (P < 0.0001). The psychological discomfort among study participants before, 1 month, and 3 months after ISP was 3.2 ± 1.7, 1.5 ± 0.7, and 1.1 ± 0.3, respectively. There was a significant reduction in psychological discomfort before and 3 months after the implant.
There have been several studies conducted previously that had findings similar to our study which showed a significant reduction in functional limitation, physical pain, and psychological discomfort following ISP for full mouth rehabilitation.[1,3,5]
The social disability among study participants before, 1 month, and 3 months after ISP was 1.8 ± 1.3, 1.1 ± 0.1, and 1.1 ± 0.1, respectively. There was a significant reduction in social disability before and 3 months after ISP (P < 0.0001).
There have been several studies conducted previously that had findings similar to our study which showed a significant reduction in social disability following ISP for full mouth rehabilitation. ISP are a safe, dependable therapeutic option with a high percentage of survival, according to longitudinal studies.[7,9]
CONCLUSION
There is a significant improvement in patient satisfaction and OHRQoL in following full mouth rehabilitation with ISP.
Financial support and sponsorship
The authors extend their appreciation to Prince Sattam bin Abdulaziz University for funding this research work through the project number (PSAU/2023/01/8970) for helping to provide information and sparing their time.
Conflicts of interest
There are no conflicts of interest.
REFERENCES
- 1.Farzadmoghadam M, Mohammadi TM, Goudarzi R, Mohammadi M, Hasheminejad N. Is there a relationship between general and oral health-related quality of life in partially edentulous patients before and after implant treatment?A quasi-experimental study. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2020;31:557–64. doi: 10.1111/clr.13593. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 2.Tiwari A, Kumar A, Jain S, Dhull KS, Sajjanar A, Puthenkandathil R, et al. Implications of ChatGPT in public health dentistry:A systematic review. Cureus. 2023;15:e40367. doi: 10.7759/cureus.40367. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 3.Yeung CA. Effect of implant rehabilitation on oral health-related quality of life with three different implant strategies. Evid Based Dent. 2020;21:92–3. doi: 10.1038/s41432-020-0112-8. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 4.Batra R, Dixit A, Tiwari A, Kumar A, Sinha S, Badnaware S, et al. Comparative evaluation of dentinal defects after root canal preparation using various nickel titanium files:An in vitro study. Cureus. 2023;15:e38829. doi: 10.7759/cureus.38829. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 5.Fonteyne E, Matthys C, Bruneel L, Becue L, De Bruyn H, Van Lierde K. Articulation, oral function, and quality of life in patients treated with implant overdentures in the mandible:A prospective study. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res. 2021;23:388–99. doi: 10.1111/cid.12989. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 6.Kumar A, Singh J, Sinha P, Kini VV, Champaneri HR, Mishra SK, et al. The efficacy of the three types of plaque control methods during fixed orthodontic treatment:A randomized controlled trial. Cureus. 2023;15:e38231. doi: 10.7759/cureus.38231. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 7.Dellepiane E, Francesco P, Paola Z, Mugno MG, Pesce P, Menini M. Oral health-related quality of life and full-arch immediate loading rehabilitation:An evaluation of preoperative, intermediate, and posttreatment assessments of patients using a modification of the OHIP questionnaire. J Oral Implantol. 2020;46:540–9. doi: 10.1563/aaid-joi-D-19-00274. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 8.Singh J, Kumar A, Gupta E, Yadav KS, Renuka G, Singh V, et al. Evaluation of the impact of chlorhexidine mouth rinse on the bond strength of polycarbonate orthodontic brackets:A case-control study. Cureus. 2023;15:e38227. doi: 10.7759/cureus.38227. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 9.Zhang Y, Chow L, Siu A, Fokas G, Chow TW, Mattheos N. Patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) and maintenance events in 2-implant-supported mandibular overdenture patients:A 5-year prospective study. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2019;30:261–76. doi: 10.1111/clr.13412. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]