Premium
Oral health‐related quality of life and esthetic outcome in single anterior maxillary implants
Author(s) -
Angkaew Chayanuch,
Serichetaphongse Pravej,
Krisdapong Sudaduang,
Dart Michel M.,
Pimkhaokham Atiphan
Publication year - 2017
Publication title -
clinical oral implants research
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 2.407
H-Index - 161
eISSN - 1600-0501
pISSN - 0905-7161
DOI - 10.1111/clr.12922
Subject(s) - medicine , quality of life (healthcare) , psychosocial , dentistry , patient satisfaction , oral health , visual analogue scale , anterior teeth , implant , patient centered outcomes , orthodontics , physical therapy , surgery , psychiatry , nursing
Objectives The aim of this study is twofold: to assess the esthetic outcome of single dental implant restorations in the anterior maxillary area after up to 3 years of function, and to evaluate the relationship between the esthetic outcome and oral health‐related quality of life. Materials and methods Twenty patients who were treated with an anterior maxillary single implant restoration were recalled for esthetic outcome evaluation using pink and white esthetic scores ( PES / WES ). All patients completed a questionnaire regarding satisfaction of treatment outcome and quality of life related to the implant restorations. Patient satisfaction was assessed by visual analog scales ( VAS ) analysis, whereas oral impact on daily life performances ( OIDP ) was used to evaluate the quality of life of patients. Results The esthetic outcome assessed by PES / WES showed favorable results. The median PES / WES scores were 16.00 (maximum possible score = 20). The median PES scores and WES scores were 7.50 and 8.00, respectively. Patient satisfaction rated in VAS scale ranged from 8 to 10. OIDP assessment showed an impact on daily life performance in 45% of patients. The most common impacts were eating ( n = 5) and cleaning teeth ( n = 4). No significant difference in PES / WES scores was found between the patients who perceived and did not perceive oral impacts. Conclusions There was some discrepancy between the dentist's evaluation and patient's perception but a strong positive satisfaction was reported from all patients which let suppose that the psychosocial factors that involve patient's perspective should be further investigated.