Patient-related outcome measures with implant therapy after 5ￂ years

• Published in: Clinical oral implants research 2017-06, Vol.28 (6), p.683
• Main Authors: Tey, Valerie H S, Phillips, Rachel, Tan, Ken
• Format: Article
• Language: English
• Subjects: Chewing; Comfort; Dental implants; Dental materials; Dental prosthetics; Dental restorative materials; Gingiva; Mastication; Patient satisfaction; Patients; Prostheses; Surgical implants; Teeth; Therapy; Tissues; Transplants & implants
• ISSN: 0905-7161; 1600-0501
• DOI: 10.1111/clr.12862

Objective To analyze patients' perception of implant therapy in partial edentulism, after 5 years with implant-supported reconstructions. Material and methods Patients who received dental implants at the National Dental Centre, Singapore 3-9 years earlier (mean: 5.2 years) were invited to participate in the study. Responders were examined clinically, and asked to answer a questionnaire with 13 statements. Results Of the 880 patients, 206 patients, with 329 implants, agreed to participate. Of the implants, 82% supported single crowns, while 18% were reconstructed with splinted crowns or fixed dental prostheses. Function and chewing comfort yielded high patient satisfaction. Comparing chewing comfort for teeth and implants, respectively, 51% perceived no difference between the two. Patients were largely satisfied with the phonetic function and esthetic outcome. Only two in three patients were able to cleanse the implant reconstruction well, and majority of the patients reported no difference comparing the time taken to clean implants and teeth. Patients were generally unsure if the tissues around their implants or teeth bled more. Pertaining to expectations, most patients were satisfied with the treatment, and majority were willing to undergo the same treatment again. Most patients would recommend such treatment to friends, if indicated. Only slightly over one-third of the patients felt certain that the cost of the treatment was justified. Conclusion The large majority was satisfied with the functional outcomes of implant treatment. However, the patients had a less than ideal understanding of gingival health around teeth and implants. Patients were less discerning than clinicians in the assessment of esthetic outcomes.