ABSTRACT
Background:
Dental implants have become a standard solution for the replacement of missing teeth, significantly influencing patient satisfaction and quality of life. This study aims to evaluate patient satisfaction and quality of life outcomes following dental implant placement.
Materials and Methods:
A total of 150 patients who received dental implants were included in this study. Patient satisfaction was assessed using a validated questionnaire covering various aspects such as esthetics, function, and comfort. Quality of life was evaluated using the Oral Health Impact Profile (OHIP-14). Data were collected at baseline (prior to implant placement) and at a 6-month follow-up.
Results:
Of the 150 patients, 135 (90%) completed the 6-month follow-up. The overall patient satisfaction score improved significantly from a baseline mean of 3.5 (SD = 1.2) to 8.2 (SD = 1.1) at the 6-month follow-up (P < 0.001). Similarly, the OHIP-14 score showed a significant reduction, indicating improved quality of life, from a baseline mean of 32.0 (SD = 5.3) to 14.5 (SD = 4.2) at the 6-month follow-up (P < 0.001). Subscales for pain, psychological discomfort, and social disability showed marked improvements.
Conclusion:
Dental implant placement leads to a significant increase in patient satisfaction and quality of life. These findings underscore the importance of dental implants as a viable option for the restoration of missing teeth and the enhancement of overall oral health and well-being.
KEYWORDS: Dental implants, dental prosthetics, oral health impact profile (OHIP-14), patient satisfaction, periodontal therapy, quality of life
INTRODUCTION
The advent of dental implants has revolutionized the field of restorative dentistry, offering a reliable and effective solution for the replacement of missing teeth. Dental implants provide several advantages over traditional dentures and bridges, including improved esthetics, enhanced functionality, and greater comfort.[1] Consequently, patient satisfaction and quality of life outcomes following dental implant placement have become critical areas of interest in dental research.
Patient satisfaction is a multifaceted concept that encompasses various dimensions such as esthetics, function, comfort, and psychological well-being.[2] Understanding these dimensions is essential for evaluating the overall success of dental implant procedures. Studies have shown that patient satisfaction is strongly associated with the clinical success of implants, which includes factors like implant survival, peri-implant health, and prosthetic performance.[3,4]
Quality of life, particularly oral health-related quality of life (OHRQoL), is another important outcome measure in implant dentistry. OHRQoL reflects the impact of oral health on an individual’s overall well-being and daily functioning. It is influenced by several factors, including pain, functional limitations, psychological discomfort, and social disability.[5]
MATERIALS AND METHODS
Study design and participants
This study was designed as a prospective cohort study conducted. A total of 150 patients, aged 25 to 65 years, who were scheduled for dental implant placement, were recruited. Inclusion criteria were patients with one or more missing teeth requiring implant-supported prostheses, good general health, and adequate bone volume for implant placement. Exclusion criteria included systemic conditions contraindicating implant surgery, inadequate bone volume without grafting, and poor oral hygiene.
Implant procedure
All patients underwent a standardized dental implant procedure performed by experienced periodontists. Implants used were titanium screw-type implants (Nobel Biocare, Zurich, Switzerland).
Data collection
Data were collected at baseline (preimplant placement) and at 6-month follow-up. The following instruments were used for data collection:
Patient Satisfaction Questionnaire: A validated questionnaire was administered to assess various aspects of patient satisfaction, including esthetics, function, comfort, and overall satisfaction. Responses were recorded on a 10-point Likert scale, with higher scores indicating greater satisfaction.
Oral Health Impact Profile (OHIP-14): The OHIP-14 was used to evaluate the impact of oral health on quality of life. It consists of 14 items covering seven dimensions: functional limitation, physical pain, psychological discomfort, physical disability, psychological disability, social disability, and handicap. Each item was scored on a 5-point Likert scale, with lower scores indicating better quality of life.
Statistical analysis
Data were analyzed using SPSS software version 25.0 (IBM Corp., Armonk, NY, USA).
RESULTS
Patient characteristics
Of the 150 patients initially recruited, 135 (90%) completed the 6-month follow-up. The baseline characteristics of the study population are summarized in Table 1.
Table 1.
Patient characteristics after implant placement
| Characteristic | Value |
|---|---|
| Total patients | 150 |
| Completed follow-up | 135 (90%) |
| Mean age (years) | 45.3±10.2 |
| Gender (male/female) | 70/65 |
| Smoking status | 30 (22.2%) smokers |
| Nonsmokers | 105 (77.8%) |
Patient satisfaction
Patient satisfaction scores significantly improved from baseline to the 6-month follow-up. The mean satisfaction score increased from 3.5 (SD =1.2) at baseline to 8.2 (SD =1.1) at the 6-month follow-up (P < 0.001). Table 2 presents the detailed patient satisfaction scores.
Table 2.
Patient satisfaction after implant placement
| Satisfaction Dimension | Baseline Mean±SD | 6-Month Follow-up Mean±SD | p-value |
|---|---|---|---|
| Esthetics | 3.8±1.4 | 8.5±1.0 | <0.001 |
| Function | 3.6±1.3 | 8.3±1.1 | <0.001 |
| Comfort | 3.4±1.2 | 8.1±1.2 | <0.001 |
| Overall satisfaction | 3.5±1.2 | 8.2±1.1 | <0.001 |
Quality of life
Quality of life, as measured by the OHIP-14, showed significant improvements at the 6-month follow-up compared to baseline. The mean OHIP-14 score decreased from 32.0 (SD =5.3) at baseline to 14.5 (SD =4.2) at the 6-month follow-up (P < 0.001). Table 3 shows the detailed OHIP-14 scores across different dimensions.
Table 3.
Quality of life after implant placement
| OHIP-14 Dimension | Baseline Mean±SD | 6-Month Follow-up Mean±SD | p-value |
|---|---|---|---|
| Functional Limitation | 5.6±1.2 | 2.5±1.1 | <0.001 |
| Physical Pain | 6.0±1.3 | 2.8±1.2 | <0.001 |
| Psychological Discomfort | 4.8±1.1 | 2.1±1.0 | <0.001 |
| Physical Disability | 5.4±1.2 | 2.3±1.1 | <0.001 |
| Psychological Disability | 5.2±1.3 | 2.4±1.0 | <0.001 |
| Social Disability | 3.5±1.2 | 1.2±0.9 | <0.001 |
| Handicap | 1.5±0.8 | 1.2±0.7 | 0.03 |
These results indicate that dental implant placement significantly enhances both patient satisfaction and quality of life, with substantial improvements.
DISCUSSION
The findings of this study indicate that dental implant placement significantly enhances patient satisfaction and quality of life. These results are consistent with previous studies that have highlighted the benefits of dental implants over conventional dentures and fixed bridges.[1,2]
One of the most notable outcomes of this study is the significant improvement in patient satisfaction scores from baseline to the 6-month follow-up. Patients reported higher levels of satisfaction with esthetics, function, and comfort, which aligns with the findings of other studies that have demonstrated similar improvements in these domains.[3,4] The increase in overall satisfaction underscores the effectiveness of dental implants in restoring both the functional and esthetic aspects of missing teeth.
Quality of life, as measured by the OHIP-14, also showed significant improvement. The reduction in OHIP-14 scores across all dimensions, including functional limitation, physical pain, psychological discomfort, physical disability, psychological disability, social disability, and handicap, suggests that dental implants have a profound positive impact on OHRQoL.[5,6] This improvement in OHRQoL is crucial as it reflects not only the physical benefits of dental implants but also the psychological and social benefits.
The significant reduction in physical pain and psychological discomfort scores can be attributed to the stability and functionality provided by dental implants. Unlike conventional dentures, which can cause discomfort and irritation, dental implants offer a stable and permanent solution that integrates with the jawbone, thus enhancing comfort and reducing pain.[7,8] This stability also translates into improved chewing efficiency and speech, which further contributes to higher satisfaction and better quality of life.
CONCLUSION
In conclusion, this study demonstrates that dental implant placement significantly improves patient satisfaction and quality of life. These findings support the use of dental implants as a preferred treatment option for the replacement of missing teeth, offering substantial benefits in terms of both functional outcomes and overall well-being.
Conflicts of interest
There are no conflicts of interest.
Funding Statement
Nil.
REFERENCES
- 1.Adell R, Lekholm U, Rockler B, Brånemark PI. A 15-year study of osseointegrated implants in the treatment of the edentulous jaw. Int J Oral Surg. 1981;10:387–416. doi: 10.1016/s0300-9785(81)80077-4. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 2.de Bruyn H, Raes S, Ostman PO, Cosyn J. Immediate loading in partially and completely edentulous jaws: A review of the literature with clinical guidelines. Periodontol 2000. 2014;66:153–87. doi: 10.1111/prd.12040. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 3.Buser D, Sennerby L, De Bruyn H. Modern implant dentistry based on osseointegration:50 years of progress, current trends, and open questions. Periodontol 2000. 2017;73:7–21. doi: 10.1111/prd.12185. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 4.Pjetursson BE, Tan K, Lang NP, Brägger U, Egger M, Zwahlen M. A systematic review of the survival and complication rates of fixed partial dentures (FPDs) after an observation period of at least 5 years. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2004;15:625–42. doi: 10.1111/j.1600-0501.2004.01117.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 5.Locker D, Allen F. What do measures of 'oral health-related quality of life'measure? Community Dent Oral Epidemiol. 2007;35:401–11. doi: 10.1111/j.1600-0528.2007.00418.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 6.Slade GD. Derivation and validation of a short-form oral health impact profile. Community Dent Oral Epidemiol. 1997;25:284–90. doi: 10.1111/j.1600-0528.1997.tb00941.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 7.Misch CE. 2nd ed. St. Louis: Elsevier Mosby; 2015. Dental Implant Prosthetics. [Google Scholar]
- 8.Esposito M, Grusovin MG, Coulthard P, Worthington HV. The efficacy of various bone augmentation procedures for dental implants: A Cochrane systematic review of randomized controlled clinical trials. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2006;21:696–710. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]