Abstract
Background
Oral Health-Related Quality of Life (OHRQoL) is a term that encompasses conditions such as oral health status, living conditions, and function. OHQoL can change with the varying health conditions of the same individual. Many patients cannot afford implants or have anatomical limitations and therefore use traditional removable dentures. There are comparatively few studies investigating OHRQoL and denture satisfaction that include the patients’ sociodemographic data, denture satisfaction and related questions.
Aim
This study aimed to investigate OHRQoL and patients’ satisfaction with three types of dentures: upper and lower complete dentures, upper and lower partial dentures, and upper complete lower partial dentures.
Methods
The study was conducted between January 2022 and June 2023, with 150 patients using removable dentures. Patients’ age, gender, education level, place of residence, smoking status, reasons for tooth loss and visiting the clinic, type of denture and the duration of denture use were recorded. Oral Health Impact Profile (OHIP-14) and patient satisfaction with dentures as measured on a Visual Analog Scale (VAS) were used to assess patients’ satisfactions with OHRQoL and dentures respectively. Descriptive statistics, the Shapiro-Wilk normality test, the Mann-Whitney non‐parametric test and the Kruskal-Wallis test were used.
Results
Statistically significant differences were found between gender, prosthetic type, usage duration and OHIP and VAS scores (p < 0.05). Women’s OHIP scores were higher than men’s, patients using complete dentures had higher scores than those using partial dentures in both jaws, those using dentures for less than 1 year had higher scores than those that had used them for more than 1 year. The analysis revealed no statistically significant differences in OHIP and VAS scores based on age, education level, and place of residence (p > 0.05).
Conclusions
Patients may find it easier to adapt to removable partial dentures compared to complete dentures. Therefore, in prosthetic planning, dentists should prioritize preserving existing teeth. Regardless of the type of prosthesis, patients adapt to their prostheses over time, leading to increased satisfaction with prolonged use. Since individuals do not have a habit of visiting the dentist when there is no known problem, dentists should encourage patients to attend regular dental check-ups.
Keywords: OHIP-14, Oral health‐related quality of life, Removable dentures, Visual analog scale
Background
Edentulism, which is common in old age, is a multifaceted problem that often causes a decrease in the quality of life by negatively affecting the psychological, aesthetic and social lives of individuals [1, 2]. Old age affects the person’s eating habits and also impairs the chewing function [3]. Prosthetic treatment options for completely edentulous patients vary today; many patients cannot afford implants or have anatomical limitations and therefore are limited to using traditional removable dentures. The goal of all these prosthetic treatments is to restore the patient’s lost aesthetics, appearance, phonation, and function [4]. In this context, the provision of dentures not only affects these functional aspects, but also the patient’s Oral Health-Related Quality of Life (OHRQoL). The latter term encompasses conditions such as oral health status, living conditions, and function. OHRQoL can vary from person to person and can also change with the varying health conditions of the same individual [5]. The impact of prosthetic treatments on OHRQoL has been the subject of many studies [6, 7]. Various scales are used to measure oral health-related quality of life. One of these scales is the Oral Health Impact Profile (OHIP-14), developed by Slade et al. [5], consisting of 14 questions.
The other important aspect is patient satisfaction with dentures. This can be measured on the visual analog scale (VAS), which is used to evaluate participants’ pain levels, satisfaction with treatment outcomes, and overall comfort [8–10]. This test is widely accepted in the world literature, reliable, and easy to apply [11]. The purpose of this study is to determine how sociodemographic data of patients with removable dentures, their reasons for visiting the clinic, and their VAS of their current dentures affect their OHRQoL.
Methods
Participants and settings
This cross-sectional study was conducted at Bolu Abant İzzet Baysal University Faculty of Dentistry in Turkey between January 2022 and June 2023, Before the study, detailed information about the research was given to the patients, and written informed consent was obtained voluntarily from each patient. The study was initiated with the approval of the ethics committee at Abant İzzet Baysal University and conducted in accordance with the principles of the Helsinki Declaration (Decision No: 2023/97).
The selection criteria for the patients were as follows: Medically healthy male or female, over 18 years of age, able to sign the informed consent form, with no temporomandibular joint problems, and who had one of three types of dentures: complete dentures in both upper and lower jaws (ULCD), partial dentures in both upper and lower jaws (ULPD), or complete dentures in the upper jaw and partial dentures in the lower jaw (UCLPD). The patients with partial dentures in the upper jaw, complete dentures in the lower jaw due to the small number of patients, and patients with life threatening conditions, physical and psychological ailments were excluded from the study.
In this study, the “G. Power-3.1.9.2” program was used with a 95% confidence level (α = 0.05), and the standardized effect size calculated as 0.2527 from a similar study [12], and the minimum sample size required for each group was determined to be 69 with a theoretical power of 0.95. In this regard, the present study was planned with a sample size of 75 for each group.
Data collection tools and procedures
In the first part of the study, responses to questions about the patients’ age, gender, education level, place of residence, reasons for tooth loss, smoking status, and reasons for visiting the clinic, were recorded. Smoking status was classified into three groups based on Shurman et al.‘s study: 0, 1–15 cigarettes per day, and more than 15 cigarettes per day [13]. The second part included questions about the type of denture and the duration of denture use. The type of denture was classified into three groups: upper and lower complete dentures, upper and lower partial dentures, and upper total and lower partial dentures. The duration of denture use was categorized into three groups, as in the study by Çankaya et al.; less than 1 year, between 1 and 5 years (1–5 years), and equal to or greater than 5 years (≥ 5 years) [14].
In the final part of the study, participants were asked to complete forms containing OHIP-14 questions. OHIP evaluates seven domains, each containing two questions. In total, there are 14 questions, divided into the domains of functional limitation, physical pain, physical disability, psychological discomfort, psychological disability, social disability, and handicap. Each item is scored on a five-point scale: Never (0), Hardly Ever (1), Occasionally (2), Fairly Often (3), and Very Often (4). The total scores obtainable from OHIP-14 range from 0 to 56; an increase in the total score indicates a decrease in quality of life [5].
Additionally, the patients were asked “How satisfied are you with your denture?“. Their responses were marked on a 100 mm visual analog scale (VAS), ranging from 0 (completely dissatisfied) to 100 (completely satisfied), to assess their overall satisfaction with their dentures [15].
Statistical analysis
The descriptive statistics (number, percentage, mean, standard deviation, median, minimum, and maximum) provided in this study were presented. The assumption of normal distribution was checked using the Shapiro-Wilk test. In cases where the normality assumption was not met, the Mann-Whitney U test was used for comparing two independent groups, and the Kruskal-Wallis test was used for comparing three or more independent groups. Post Hoc Bonferroni correction tests were used to identify the group or groups creating the difference. The Pearson Chi-Square test was applied to test the relationship between categorical variables when the sample size assumption (expected value > 5) was met, and Spearman’s rho correlation analysis was used to examine the relationships between parameters. The analyses were performed using the IBM SPSS 25 program.
Results
Demographics, smoking status, type of denture, duration of denture use and reasons for visiting the clinic
Table 1 shows demographics, smoking status, type of denture, duration of denture use and reasons for visiting the clinic of the participants. A total of 150 participants were included in this study, with an equal number of participants from both genders. The average age was 59.5 for men and 53.3 for women. The most common educational level was primary school, with 76 individuals (50.7%), while 15 were university educational level (10%). The majority live in rural/village areas (52%). The most frequently observed reason for tooth loss was decay (55.3%), while trauma was the least common reason (17.3%). Most participants did not smoke (58%), and the most commonly used denture type is upper and lower complete denture (ULCD) (56%). The most common reason for clinical visits was the need for relining/rebasing (21.3%), while routine check-ups were the least observed reason (4.7%).
Table 1.
Distribution of individuals according to demographic characteristics
| n (%) | |
|---|---|
| Gender | |
| Female | 75 (50.0) |
| Male | 75 (50.0) |
| Education level | |
| Illiterate | 24 (16.0) |
| Primary school | 76 (50.7) |
| High school | 35 (23.3) |
| University | 15 (10.0) |
| Place of residence | |
| City | 72 (48.0) |
| Rural/village | 78 (52.0) |
| Reasons of tooth loss | |
| Decay | 83 (55.3) |
| Trauma | 26 (17.3) |
| Gingival diseases | 41 (27.3) |
| Smoking status | |
| None | 87 (58.0) |
| 1–15 per day | 38 (25.3) |
| More than 15 per day | 25 (16.7) |
| Type of denture | |
| ULCD | 84 (56.0) |
| ULPD | 51 (34.0) |
| UCLPD | 15 (10.0) |
| Duration of denture use | |
| Less than 1 year | 42 (28.0) |
| 1–5 years | 54 (36.0) |
| More than 5 years | 54 (36.0) |
| Reasons for visiting the clinic | |
| Need for relining/rebasing | 32 (21.3) |
| Desire to renew the denture | 29 (19.3) |
| Loss of the denture | 25 (16.7) |
| Clasp/framework/denture fracture | 16 (10.7) |
| Pain/decay in existing teeth | 16 (10.7) |
| Wear/staining/fracture of the denture teeth | 15 (10.0) |
| Soft tissue problems under the denture | 10 (6.7) |
| Routine check-up | 7 (4.7) |
ULCD, upper and lower complete denture; ULPD, upper and lower partial denture; UCLPD, upper complete lower partial denture
OHIP and VAS scores on patient satisfaction with dentures
The distributions of OHIP and VAS scores on patient satisfaction with dentures are presented in Table 2. Of the seven domains of OHIP-14, the lowest scores were observed for functional limitation (1.40) and handicap (1.82), while the highest scores were for psychological discomfort (3.47). The mean OHIP score was 16.4, while the mean VAS score on patient satisfaction with dentures was 77.3.
Table 2.
Distribution of individuals’ OHIP-14 and VAS scores
| Minimum | Maximum | Mean | Standart deviation | Median | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Functional limitation | 0.00 | 6.00 | 1.40 | 1.38 | 1.00 |
| Physical pain | 0.00 | 8.00 | 2.88 | 1.79 | 3.00 |
| Psychological discomfort | 0.00 | 8.00 | 3.47 | 1.83 | 3.00 |
| Physical disability | 0.00 | 7.00 | 2.44 | 1.53 | 2.00 |
| Psychological disability | 0.00 | 7.00 | 2.23 | 1.75 | 2.00 |
| Social disability | 0.00 | 6.00 | 1.89 | 1.54 | 2.00 |
| Handicap | 0.00 | 7.00 | 1.82 | 1.51 | 2.00 |
| OHIP-14 | 0.00 | 40.00 | 16.14 | 6.51 | 16.00 |
| VAS | 0.00 | 100.00 | 77.33 | 15.34 | 80.00 |
OHIP: Oral Health Impact Profile; VAS: Visual Analog Scale
Mann-Whitney U and Kruskal-Wallis tests were conducted to compare OHIP and VAS scores based on individuals’ demographic characteristics. The analysis revealed no statistically significant differences in OHIP and VAS scores based on age, education level, and place of residence (p > 0.05).
Gender differences on OHIP-14 domains and VAS scores are shown in Table 3. Females scored significantly higher than males on of physical pain, psychological discomfort, physical disability, psychological disability, social disability, as well as in OHIP total score. Males had significantly higher VAS scores compared to females. There were no statistically significant differences between gender and scores for functional limitation and handicap (p > 0.05).
Table 3.
Comparison of gender with OHIP-14 and VAS scores
| Functional limitation | Physical pain | Psychological discomfort | Physical disability | Psychological disability | Social disability | Handicap | OHIP-14 | VAS | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Gender | |||||||||
| Female | 1.35 ± 1.45a | 3.65 ± 1.98a | 4.43 ± 1.64a | 3.01 ± 1.51a | 2.75 ± 1.67a | 2.24 ± 1.66a | 1.96 ± 1.6a | 19.39 ± 5.71a | 74.93 ± 16.49a |
| Male | 1.45 ± 1.32a | 2.11 ± 1.13b | 2.52 ± 1.49b | 1.87 ± 1.34b | 1.72 ± 1.68b | 1.55 ± 1.33b | 1.68 ± 1.41a | 12.89 ± 5.60b | 79.73 ± 13.80b |
| Test statistics | 2627.5 | 1431.5 | 1074 | 1573 | 1787.5 | 2136.5 | 2561 | 997 | 2295 |
| p | 0.47 | < 0.001* | < 0.001* | < 0.001* | < 0.001* | 0.009* | 0.334 | < 0.001* | 0.048* |
OHIP: Oral Health Impact Profile; VAS: Visual Analog Scale. Different lowercase letters denote significant differences between groups (Mann-Whitney U test for differences between female and male groups, p < 0.05)
Differences between the prosthetic types are shown in Table 4. Domain scores for physical pain, psychological discomfort, physical disability, psychological disability, and overall OHIP score were significantly higher in ULCD users compared to ULPD and UTLPD users. VAS scores were significantly lower in ULCD users compared to ULPD and UCLPD users. Significant differences were found only between ULCD and ULPD groups in terms of functional limitation, social disability, and handicap scores. Functional limitation, social disability, and handicap scores were higher in ULCD users compared to ULPD users.
Table 4.
Comparison of prosthetic type with OHIP-14 and VAS scores
| Functional limitation | Physical pain | Psychological discomfort | Physical disability | Psychological disability | Social disability | Handicap | OHIP-14 | VAS | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Type of denture | |||||||||
| ULCD | 1.67 ± 1.49a | 3.67 ± 1.77a | 4.1 ± 1.85a | 3.04 ± 1.45a | 2.92 ± 1.79a | 2.32 ± 1.58a | 2.17 ± 1.60a | 19.87 ± 5.45a | 74.58 ± 15.59a |
| ULPD | 1.00 ± 1.10b | 1.86 ± 1.2b | 2.73 ± 1.51b | 1.67 ± 1.31b | 1.35 ± 1.25b | 1.31 ± 1.24b | 1.27 ± 1.27b | 11.20 ± 4.53b | 80.88 ± 14.82b |
| UCLPD | 1.27 ± 1.33ab | 1.93 ± 1.33b | 2.53 ± 1.41b | 1.73 ± 1.28b | 1.40 ± 1.24b | 1.47 ± 1.51ab | 1.73 ± 1.22ab | 12.07 ± 3.37b | 80.67 ± 13.35b |
| Test statistics | 6.594 | 43.155 | 23.021 | 29.919 | 29.389 | 15.835 | 10.568 | 78.326 | 6.592 |
| p | 0.037* | < 0.001* | < 0.001* | < 0.001* | < 0.001* | < 0.001* | 0.005* | < 0.001* | 0.037* |
ULCD, upper and lower complete denture; ULPD, upper and lower partial denture; UCLPD, upper complete lower partial denture, OHIP: Oral Health Impact Profile; VAS: Visual Analog Scale. Different lowercase letters denote significant differences between groups (Kruskal-Wallis test for difference between 3 groups, p < 0.05)
Differences between durations of denture use is shown in Table 5. Significant differences were found in terms of physical pain, psychological discomfort, physical disability, psychological disability, social disability, and OHIP scores among individuals using prosthetics for less than 1 year, 1–5 years, and more than 5 years (p < 0.05). Scores for those using prosthetics for less than 1 year were higher compared to those using them for 1–5 years and more than 5 years. Regarding social disability scores, a statistically significant difference was observed between individuals using prosthetics for less than 1 year and those using them for more than 5 years (p < 0.01), with scores being higher in those using prosthetics for less than 1 year.
Table 5.
Comparison of prosthetic usage duration with OHIP-14 and VAS scores
| Functional limitation | Physical pain | Psychological discomfort | Physical disability | Psychological disability | Social disability | Handicap | OHIP-14 | VAS | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Duration of denture use | |||||||||
| Less than 1 year | 1.69 ± 1.62a | 4.24 ± 2.01a | 4.67 ± 1.86a | 3.38 ± 1.53a | 3.19 ± 1.94a | 2.69 ± 1.79a | 2.26 ± 1.75a | 22.12 ± 6.21a | 70.60 ± 17.33a |
| 1–5 years | 1.30 ± 1.35a | 2.54 ± 1.53b | 3.07 ± 1.53b | 2.15 ± 1.46b | 2.13 ± 1.68b | 1.78 ± 1.24ab | 1.63 ± 1.32a | 14.59 ± 5.25b | 82.13 ± 12.19b |
| More than 5 years | 1.28 ± 1.19a | 2.17 ± 1.19b | 2.94 ± 1.69b | 2.00 ± 1.30b | 1.59 ± 1.30b | 1.39 ± 1.37b | 1.67 ± 1.43a | 13.04 ± 4.60b | 77.78 ± 14.88ab |
| Test statistics | 1.652 | 28.452 | 24.591 | 19.145 | 17.629 | 14.940 | 3.293 | 53.360 | 12.103 |
| p | 0.438 | < 0.001* | < 0.001* | < 0.001* | < 0.001* | 0.001* | 0.193 | < 0.001* | 0.002* |
OHIP: Oral Health Impact Profile; VAS: Visual Analog Scale. Different lowercase letters denote significant differences between groups (Kruskal-Wallis test for difference between 3 groups, p < 0.05)
In terms of VAS scores, a statistically significant difference was found between individuals using prosthetics for less than 1 year and those using them for 1–5 years (p < 0.01), with VAS scores being higher in the 1–5 years group compared to the less than 1 year group. However, no statistically significant differences were found in terms of functional limitation and handicap scores based on prosthetic usage duration (p > 0.05).
Differences between participants’ gender and smoking habits with the cause of tooth loss is shown in Table 6. The analysis revealed no statistically significant difference between gender and the cause of tooth loss (p > 0.05). However, a statistically significant relationship was found between smoking habits and the cause of tooth loss (p < 0.01). It was observed that non-smokers mostly experienced tooth decay, whereas as smoking increased, instances of trauma and gum disease also increased.
Table 6.
Relationships between gender and smoking habits with causes of tooth loss
| Causes of tooth loss | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Decay | Trauma | Gingival diseases | Test statistics | p | |
| Gender | 0.847 | 0.655 | |||
| Female | 41 (54.7) | 15 (20) | 19 (25.3) | ||
| Male | 42 (56) | 11 (14.7) | 22 (29.3) | ||
| Smoking status | |||||
| None | 66 (75.9)a | 10 (11.5)b | 11 (12.6)b | 49.011 | < 0.001* |
| 1–15 per day | 14 (36.8)a | 12 (31.6)a | 12 (31.6)a | ||
| More than 15 per day | 3 (12)a | 4 (16)a | 18 (72)b | ||
Different lowercase letters denote significant differences between groups (Mann-Whitney U test for differences between female and male groups, Kruskal-Wallis test for difference between 3 groups, p < 0.05)
Discussion
This study aims to investigate how various types of prostheses used by patients with removable dentures affect oral health-related quality of life and patient satisfaction. Additionally, the study examines the effects of factors such as gender, education level, place of residence, and duration of prosthesis use on quality of life. Reasons for clinical visits and causes of tooth loss have also been analyzed.
When comparing gender with prosthetic satisfaction, it has been observed that satisfaction levels are lower among female patients. Studies by Panek et al. and Santos et al., which examined patient satisfaction, similarly reported that men adapt better to their prostheses compared to women, and women tend to have higher aesthetic expectations [16, 17]. Women may find it challenging to adapt to prostheses during menopause due to emotional and physical changes. In Turkey, the average age of menopause for women is between 47 and 49 years [18], and in the study cited, the average age for women was 53.3 years. This age difference between genders may be a contributing factor. Additionally, advancing age can negatively affect prosthesis adaptation for both genders [19].
When examining the reasons for tooth loss, it has been observed that the majority of patients lose their teeth due to decay. In pairwise comparisons, statistically significant differences have been found between smoking and tooth loss due to gum disease/loose teeth. As cigarette consumption increases, the incidence of tooth loss due to gum disease/loose teeth also increases. Studies have reported that smokers are 3–4 times more likely to have periodontal disease compared to non-smokers, and that the extent of alveolar bone loss increases with the number of cigarettes smoked. These findings support the results of the current study [20, 21].
In the current study, individuals who use both upper and lower complete dentures have the lowest Oral Health-Related Quality of Life (OHRQoL), while individuals using both upper and lower partial dentures have the highest OHRQoL. Similarly, a cross-sectional study conducted in Canada reported that in edentulous subjects, scores in the seven domains of OHIP-14 were significantly higher compared to dentate subjects [22]. It has been concluded that as the number of existing teeth increases, oral health-related quality of life improves, a finding supported by many studies [23–25].
In this study, individuals who have been using dentures for 1–5 years reported higher VAS scores compared to those who have been using dentures for less than 1 year. There was a statistically significant relationship found between duration of denture use and physical pain, psychological discomfort, physical disability, psychological disability, and social disability. Based on the findings, it can be said that denture experience positively impacts quality of life in these areas. Previous studies also support this conclusion, suggesting that longer denture use facilitates the adaptation process for patients [26–28]. In the current study, it was observed that patient satisfaction decreases when denture usage exceeds 5 years. This result suggests that over time, changes in soft and hard tissues may lead to retention and aesthetic losses.
In a study conducted by Butt et al. [29], it was reported that conventional complete dentures have disadvantages such as pain, difficulty in accepting the prosthesis, and failure to meet expectations. Therefore, individuals may find it challenging to use their dentures. In the study by Hilal et al. [30], it was found that physical pain scores were high, suggesting that physical pain was the most significant factor negatively impacting patients’ quality of life. Similarly, in the current study, it was found that the highest scores in the seven domains of OHIP-14 were related to psychological discomfort, followed by physical pain. In a study conducted by Shaghaghian et al. [20] which investigated the oral health-related quality of life (OHRQoL) of a group of patients using removable partial dentures in Iran, participants reported the most difficulty in terms of physical disability and physical pain. They experienced very few issues related to disability and social disability. In the current study, the lowest scores were obtained in the categories of functional limitation and disability.
Seenivasan et al. [31], evaluated the effects of complete dentures on the quality of life of patients based on their education levels in a study. Although individuals who graduated from secondary education and those working in low socioeconomic levels had better denture satisfaction compared to other categories, this difference was not found to be statistically significant. Similarly, in the present study, no statistically significant difference was observed in all OHIP and VAS scores based on education level. In contrast, in a study by Celebic et al. [26], it was reported that patients with lower education levels were generally more satisfied with their dentures compared to those with higher education levels. In the present study, the proportion of patients with a high education level was 33.6%, whereas in Celebic and colleagues’ study, the proportion of patients with a low education level was higher and the proportion of patients with a high education level was lower (15%). It was thought that this discrepancy might have caused the differences in findings.
In elderly patients, as metabolism slows down, atrophy can be observed in the mucosa, bone, and muscle tissues over time. As this atrophy progresses, it can lead to chewing and speech disorders. Additionally, changes in the soft tissues can result in a loss of retention and stability in existing dentures [32]. Since soft liner materials have a high surface friction coefficient, they can increase retention between the denture and the tissue. This friction between the denture and oral tissues prevents excessive movement of the denture [33]. In the present study, the most common reason for patients visiting the clinic was the need for relining/lining.
For the early diagnosis of diseases and thus the initiation of appropriate early treatment, it is critical to visit the dentist regularly. When asked how frequently they visit the dentist, it was observed, as in many studies, that patients do not adhere to periodic dental visits [34, 35], and do not go to the dentist for check-ups unless they have a complaint [36]. In this study, the reason with the lowest proportion for patients visiting the clinic was for check-ups (4.7%). It is thought that the reasons patients have not developed the habit of visiting the dentist include the cost of dental services and the widespread fear of dentistry in the community. Dental fear is a problem that affects a large population and can be seen in almost every individual [37]. This problem can cause patients to postpone their dental treatment appointments, attend check-up examinations irregularly, or not go at all [38].
The limitation of this study includes obtaining data from a single center and the prosthetic treatments being performed by different dentists. Another limitation could be the presence of fixed prostheses as the opposing arch, or the potential different effects of various types of fixed and removable prostheses on oral health-related quality of life.
Conclusion
The results of the current study have shown that gender, type of prosthesis, and duration of prosthesis significantly influence OHIP total scores, OHIP subscale scores and patient satisfaction, underscoring their importance in individuals’ quality of life. Female patients tend to have lower satisfaction levels, whereas male patients exhibit higher satisfaction levels. Patients may find it easier to adapt to removable partial dentures compared to full dentures in both arches. Therefore, in prosthetic planning, dentists should prioritize preserving existing teeth in the mouth and consider partial dentures as the initial alternative.
Abbreviations
- OHIP
Oral Health Impact Profile
- OHRQoL
Oral Health related Quality of Life
- ULPD
Upper and Lower Partial Denture
- ULCD
Upper and Lower Complete Denture
- UCLPD
Upper Total Lower Partial Denture
- VAS
Visual Analog Scale
Author contributions
B.T. Conceived and designed the analysis, Collected the data, Contributed data or analysis tools, and revised the paper. N.U. Conceived and designed the analysis, Collected the data and revised the paper. All authors revised the study and approved it.
Funding
There was no funding or financial support in this study.
Data availability
Data is provided within the manuscript.
Declarations
Ethics approval and consent to participate
The written informed consent letter was achieved from the patients and they had consent to participate in this study. All experiments were performed in accordance with relevant guidelines and regulations of the Declaration of Helsinki. The Ethical approval was obtained from the ethics committee of Abant Izzet Baysal University (Decision No: 2023/97).
Consent for publication
Not applicable.
Competing interests
The authors declare no competing interests.
Footnotes
Publisher’s note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
References
- 1.Divaris K, Ntounis A, Marinis A, Polyzois G, Polychronopoulou A. Loss of natural dentition: multi-level effects among a geriatric population. Gerodontology. 2012;29(2):e192–99. 10.1111/j.1741-2358.2010.00440.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 2.Thomson WM, Ma S. An ageing population poses dental challenges. Singap Dental J. 2014;35:3–8. 10.1016/j.sdj.2014.10.001. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 3.Köse O, Alkurt M, Dilsiz A, Arabacı T. The effects of edentulism on nutritional habits and body weight. J Dent Fac Atatürk Uni. 2013;23:399–407. [Google Scholar]
- 4.Büyükdere A, Değirmenci K, Özgür B. Assesments of life quality and chewing efficiency of patients using new complete prosthesis. J Dent Fac Atatürk Uni. 2018;4:504–51. 10.17567/ataunidfd.473864. [Google Scholar]
- 5.Slade GD. Derivation and validation of a short-form oral health impact profile. Commun Dent Oral Epidemiol. 1997;25(4):284–. 10.1111/j.1600-0528.1997.tb00941.x. 90. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 6.Zhang L, Lyu C, Shang Z, Niu A, Liang X. Quality of life of implant-supported overdenture and conventional complete denture in restoring the edentulous mandible: a systematic review. Implant Dent. 2017;26(6):945–50. 10.1097/ID.0000000000000668. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 7.Matthys C, Vervaeke S, Besseler J, Doornewaard R, Dierens M, De Bruyn H. Five years follow-up of mandibular 2‐implant overdentures on locator or ball abutments: Implant results, patient‐related outcome, and prosthetic aftercare. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res. 2019;21(5):835–44. 10.1111/cid.12840. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 8.Luo JYN, Liu PP, Wong MCM. Patients’ satisfaction with dental care: a qualitative study to develop a satisfaction instrument. BMC Oral Health. 2018;18:1–10. 10.1186/s12903-018-0477-7. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 9.Begum MR, Hossain MA. Validity and reliability of visual analogue scale (VAS) for pain measurement. J Med Case Rep Reviews. 2019;2(11). https://www.researchgate.net/publication/370776477
- 10.Qu M, Zhao J, Zhang Y, Xu Z, Ma C, Cui H. Utilizing the visual analogue scale (VAS) to monitor and manage pain in post-operative skin wounds after thoracic surgery. Int Wound J. 2024;21(3):e14503. 10.1111/iwj.14503. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar] [Retracted]
- 11.Besser A, Priel B. Emotional responses to a romantic partner’s imaginary rejection: the roles of attachment anxiety, covert narcissism, and self-evaluation. J Pers. 2009;77(1):287–325. 10.1111/j.1467-6494.2008.00546.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 12.Degirmenci K, Kalaycioglu O. Evaluation of quality of life and oral hygiene attitudes of individuals using dental prostheses during the COVID-19 pandemic. J Prosthet Dent. 2021;126(1):51. 10.1016/j.prosdent.2021.03.022. e1-51. e7. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 13.Shulman J, Rivera-Hidalgo F, Beach M. Risk factors associated with denture stomatitis in the United States. J oral Pathol Med. 2005;34(6):340–46. 10.1111/j.1600-0714.2005.00287.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 14.Cankaya ZT, Yurkados A, Kalabay PG. The association between denture care and oral hygiene habits, oral hygiene knowledge and periodontal status of geriatric patients wearing removable partial dentures. Eur oral Res. 2020;54(1):9–15. 10.26650/eor.20200048. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 15.Besser A, Shackelford TK. Mediation of the effects of the big five personality dimensions on negative mood and confirmed affective expectations by perceived situational stress: a quasi-field study of vacationers. Pers Indiv Differ. 2007;42(7):1333–46. 10.1016/j.paid.2006.10.011. [Google Scholar]
- 16.Panek H, Krawczykowska H, Dobosz A, Napadłek P, Panek BA, Sosna-Gramza M. Follow‐up visits as a measure of adaptation process to removable prostheses. Gerodontology. 2006;23(2):87–92. 10.1111/j.1741-2358.2006.00091.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 17.Santos BFO, dos Santos MBF, Santos JFF, Marchini L. Patients’ evaluations of complete denture therapy and their association with related variables: a pilot study. J Prosthodont. 2015;24(5):351–57. 10.1111/jopr.12286. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 18.Kurt G, Arslan H. Kadınların menopoz döneminde yaşadıkları sağlık sorunları ve baş etme yöntemleri. Cukurova Med J. 2020;45(3):910–20. 10.17826/cumj.694473. [Google Scholar]
- 19.Ettinger R. Some observations on the diagnosis and treatment of complete denture problems. Aust Dent J. 1978;23(6):457–64. 10.1111/j.1834-7819.1978.tb03561.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 20.Scabbia A, Cho KS, Sigurdsson TJ, Kim CK, Trombelli L. Cigarette smoking negatively affects healing response following flap debridement surgery. J Periodontol. 2001;72(1):43–9. 10.1902/jop.2001.72.1.43. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 21.Mahanonda R, Sa-Ard‐Iam N, Eksomtramate M, Rerkyen P, Phairat B, Schaecher K, et al. Cigarette smoke extract modulates human β‐defensin‐2 and interleukin‐8 expression in human gingival epithelial cells. J Periodontal Res. 2009;44(4):557–64. 10.1111/j.1600-0765.2008.01153.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 22.Locker D, Slade G. Oral health and the quality of life among older adults: the oral health impact profile. J Can Dent Assoc. 1993;59(10):830. 10.1007/978-94-007-0753-5. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 23.Siadat H, Alikhasi M, Mirfazaelian A, Geramipanah F, Zaery F. Patient satisfaction with implant-retained mandibular overdentures: a retrospective study. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res. 2008;10(2):93–8. 10.1111/j.1708-8208.2007.00065.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 24.Özhayat E, Gotfredsen K, Elverdam B, Öwall B. Patient-generated aspects in oral rehabilitation decision making I. comparison of traditional history taking and an individual systematic interview method. J Rehabil. 2009;36(10):726–36. 10.1111/j.1365-2842.2009.01983.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 25.Jain M, Kaira L, Sikka G, Singh S, Gupta A, Sharma R, et al. How do age and tooth loss affect oral health impacts and quality of life? A study comparing two state samples of gujarat and rajasthan. J Dentistry (Tehran Iran). 2012;9(2):135. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 26.Čelebić A, Knezović-Zlatarić D, Papić M, Carek V, Baučić I, Stipetić J. Factors related to patient satisfaction with complete denture therapy. Journals Gerontol Ser A: Biol Sci Med Sci. 2003;58(10):M948–53. 10.1093/gerona/58.10.M948. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 27.Erić J, Šojić LT, Bjelović L, Tsakos G, Tihaček Šojić L. Changes in oral Health Related Quality of Life (OHRQoL) and satisfaction with Conventional Complete dentures among Elderly people. Oral Health Prev Dent. 2017;15(3). 10.3290/j.ohpd.a38524. [DOI] [PubMed]
- 28.Koçak İ, Kunt GE, Ceylan G. Comparing the efficiency of mandibular implant-retained complete dentures and conventional complete dentures among elderly edentulous patients: satisfaction and quality of life. Uluslararası Diş Hekimliği Bilimleri Dergisi. 2021;7(2):27–34. [Google Scholar]
- 29.Butt AM, Ahmed B, Parveen N, Yazdanie N. Oral health related quality of life in complete dentures. 2009. http://142.54.178.187:9060/xmlui/handle/123456789/17702.
- 30.Özsoy HE, Tuncer E. Tam Dişsiz Hastalarda Farklı Restorasyon Tiplerinin Ağız Sağlığına İlişkin Yaşam Kalitesine Etkisi. J Anatol Med Res. 2021;6(1):18–23. [Google Scholar]
- 31.Seenivasan M, Banu F, Inbarajan A, Natarajan P, Natarajan S, Karthigeyan J. The consequence of complete dentures on quality of life of edentulous patients in the south-indian population based on educational and socioeconomic grades. Cureus. 2020;12(2). 10.7759/cureus.6923. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
- 32.Visser A, Raghoebar GM, Meijer HJ, Batenburg RH, Vissink A. Mandibular overdentures supported by two or four endosseous implants: a 5-year prospective study. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2005;16(1):19–25. 10.1111/j.1600-0501.2004.01085.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 33.Grant AA, Heath RJ, McCord JF. Complete prosthodontics: problems, diagnosis and management. (No Title). 1994.
- 34.Marchini L, Tamashiro E, Nascimento D, Cunha V. Self-reported denture hygiene of a sample of edentulous attendees at a University dental clinic and the relationship to the condition of the oral tissues. Gerodontology. 2004;21(4):226–28. 10.1111/j.1741-2358.2004.00026.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 35.Ogunrinde TJ, Opeodu OI. Denture care practice among patients attending the prosthetic clinic in a Nigerian teaching hospital. Nigerian Med J. 2015;56(3):199–203. 10.4103/0300-1652.160395. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 36.Gümüşok M, Şimşek E, Erdem M, Demirağ S, Karabey U. Evaluation of Hygiene, attitude, and habits on the removable dentures in a group of patients. Clin Experimental Health Sci. 2018;8(2):93–7. 10.5152/clinexphealthsci.2017.489. [Google Scholar]
- 37.Tümen EC. Çocuklarda dental anksiyete ve korku, iletişim ve davranışsal yönetim problemleri. Turkiye Klinikleri J Dent Sci. 2010;16(3):249–56. [Google Scholar]
- 38.Akarslan ZZ, Erten H. Diş hekimliği Korkusu ve kaygısı. Hacettepe Dişhekimliği Fakültesi Derg(Clinical Dentistry Research). 2009;33(1):62–8. [Google Scholar]
Associated Data
This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.
Data Availability Statement
Data is provided within the manuscript.