|Year : 2020 | Volume
| Issue : 2 | Page : 23-25
Evaluation of patient’s satisfaction with single implant prosthesis
Ujjwal Priyadarsi1, Mohammad Shahbaz Alam2, Farrukh Azam1, Prashant Nayanam3, Richa S N Minz3, Eepsa Mukhopadhyay3
1 Department of Dentistry, Patliputra Medical College & Hospital, Dhanbad, Jharkhand, India
2 Department of Periodontology & Oral Implantology, Awadh Dental College & Hospital, Jamshedpur, Jharkhand, India
3 Department of Prosthodontics, Awadh Dental College & Hospital, Jamshedpur, Jharkhand, India
|Date of Submission||01-Jun-2020|
|Date of Acceptance||08-Jun-2020|
|Date of Web Publication||27-Jun-2020|
Dr. Ujjwal Priyadarsi
K5-14, Jhelum Apartment, Siroman Nagar, Near MGM Medical College, Dimna, Jamshedpur 831012, Jharkhand.
Source of Support: None, Conflict of Interest: None
Background: Awareness about dental implants is increasing among patients, and patient satisfaction after treatment with implants is prone to be affected by the disparity between extremely high expectations and the final outcomes. Therefore, the aim of the study was to investigate the factors, which could affect patient satisfaction and the single implant treatment plans supported by dentists. Materials and Methods: All patients who received single implant treatments between June 2019 and December 2019, from all the dental clinics in Dhanbad, Jharkhand, India, were included. According to the Oral Health Impact Profile-14 questionnaire (Hongxing L, List T, Nilsson IM, Johansson A, Astrøm AN. Validity and reliability of OIDP and OHIP-14: A survey of Chinese high school students. BMC Oral Health 2014;14:158; Heng D, Zou N, Liu H, Huang H, Yang G, Chen L, et al. Satisfaction analysis of patients with single implant treatments based on a questionnaire survey. Patient Prefer Adherence 2019;13:695-704), the Oral Implant Impact Profile Questionnaire was reorganized to contain 15 questions (Q1–Q15) related to satisfaction with the dental implant. Results: The level of patient satisfaction with implant treatment scored positive (mean scores >4). The mean satisfaction score ranged from 4.43 to 4.91 in the 15 items, suggesting that single implant treatments for missing teeth met the expectations of patients. Conclusion: It is essential to raise the general awareness of oral implants and to optimize the dental implant therapeutic processes as much as possible, both of which are conducive to enhance patient satisfaction in dental clinics.
Keywords: Dental implant, dental satisfaction, oral health education, oral hygiene, patient satisfaction
|How to cite this article:|
Priyadarsi U, Alam MS, Azam F, Nayanam P, Minz RS, Mukhopadhyay E. Evaluation of patient’s satisfaction with single implant prosthesis. Int J Oral Care Res 2020;8:23-5
|How to cite this URL:|
Priyadarsi U, Alam MS, Azam F, Nayanam P, Minz RS, Mukhopadhyay E. Evaluation of patient’s satisfaction with single implant prosthesis. Int J Oral Care Res [serial online] 2020 [cited 2020 Jul 3];8:23-5. Available from: http://www.ijocr.org/text.asp?2020/8/2/23/288062
| Introduction|| |
The nearest equivalent replacement to the natural tooth is the dental implant–supported prosthesis and has been proven to have a predictable and reliable therapeutic effect for missing teeth. Awareness about dental implants is increasing among the general public, and more and more patients are seeking information about dental implants. The majority of patients treated with implant-supported prosthesis have reported improvement in their quality of life and self-confidence. Advantages of implant-supported restorations include psychological benefits and tooth structure conservation, adjacent to the teeth to be replaced. Owing to high success rates and predictability of dental implants, the prevalence of dental implant therapy in partially dentate and edentulous patients is increasing year by year. Replacement of missing or lost teeth with dental prostheses supported by implants has been accepted and rated as a positive experience by patients who have undergone implant treatment., Patient satisfaction after treatment with implants was prone to be affected by the disparity between extremely high expectations and the final outcomes., Therefore, it is crucial to investigate the factors, which could affect patient satisfaction and the single implant treatment plans supported by dentists.
| Materials and Methods|| |
All patients who were at least 18 years of age with single tooth loss for at least 3 months were included. The patients received single implant treatments between June 2019 and December 2019, from all the dental clinics in Dhanbad, Jharkhand, India. The exclusion criteria were patients who had received implant treatment before this study and who were unable to comply with all study procedures. A total of 500 participants who completed questionnaires were enrolled, and their data were evaluated in this study. The questionnaire covered participants’ information, including name, gender, age, educational level, and telephone number, and their satisfaction score based on a visual analog scale of 1–5. According to the Oral Health Impact Profile-14 Questionnaire,, the Oral Implant Impact Profile Questionnaire (OIIP-Q) was reorganized to contain 15 questions (Q1–Q15) related to satisfaction with the dental implant. All participants were asked to disclose the level of impact on visual analog scales, where “1” = unsatisfaction and “5” = satisfaction.
| Results|| |
The level of patient satisfaction with implant treatment was scored positive (mean scores >4). As shown in [Table 1], the mean satisfaction score ranged from 4.43 to 4.91 in the 15 items, suggesting that single implant treatments for missing teeth met the expectations of patients. The highest score was presented by those who were given the preoperative introduction by dentists (4.91 ± 0.40) as they could enjoy excellent preoperative evaluation and education of dental implants. The lowest scores were given from those with foreign body sensation of implants compared with their natural teeth (4.43 ± 0.68), indicating that there was still a feeling distinction between dental implants and natural teeth. In addition to aforementioned, the other two higher satisfied items were the comfortable feeling with dental implants (4.83 ± 0.66) and restoration of chewing ability (4.78 ± 0.25). These results showed that dental implant treatment has become a preferable choice for the patients with missing teeth.
|Table 1: Oral Implant Impact Profile Questionnaire pertaining to satisfaction score with various aspects of implants (n = 500)|
Click here to view
| Discussion|| |
Dental patient satisfaction is one of the important items for evaluating clinical services, so understanding and measuring its priority to the treatment appears to be essential for dentists to improve clinical outcomes. Usually, satisfactory patients have better compliance, and the rate of follow-up is more. It is well known that evaluation of dental implants includes many parameters, such as aesthetics, comfort, functionality, longevity, hygiene, presentation, and psychological satisfaction. According to multiple factors in different periods of implant treatment, the OIIP-Q was designed. On the basis of OIIP-Q, the lowest score was obtained for patients who insisted that the significant difference between dental implants and natural teeth was possibly due to the absence of the periodontal ligament and baroreceptors of implants. Nowadays, there are many ways to get information in the modern world. However, patients often acquire insufficient information regarding dental implants. Therefore, it is necessary to improve public awareness about the disadvantages of missing teeth through various ways, such as oral health education and stream media. Thus, dentists should help patients in overcoming their worries, which could cause stress and discomfort by rational implant design and humanistic care. On the contrary, some patients with inaccurate perceptions and unrealized expectations found it difficult to achieve excellent treatment results for dental implants, so it is important for these patients to establish practical desires of implant treatment in a method of reasonable and efficient communication.
| Conclusion|| |
It is essential to raise the general awareness of oral implants as early as possible and to optimize dental implant therapeutic processes as much as possible, both of which are conducive to enhancing patient satisfaction with dental implant surgery in dental clinics.
Financial support and sponsorship
Conflicts of interest
There are no conflicts of interest.
| References|| |
Pommer B, Zechner W, Watzak G, Ulm C, Watzek G, Tepper G. Progress and trends in patients’ mindset on dental implants. I: Level of information, sources of information and need for patient information. Clin Oral Implants Res 2011;22:223-9.
Lindh T, Gunne J, Tillberg A, Molin M. A meta-analysis of implants in partial edentulism. Clin Oral Implants Res 1998;9: 80-90.
Aglietta M, Siciliano VI, Zwahlen M, Brägger U, Pjetursson BE, Lang NP, et al
. A systematic review of the survival and complication rates of implant supported fixed dental prostheses with cantilever extensions after an observation period of at least 5 years. Clin Oral Implants Res 2009;20:441-51.
den Hartog L, Slater JJ, Vissink A, Meijer HJ, Raghoebar GM. Treatment outcome of immediate, early and conventional single-tooth implants in the aesthetic zone: A systematic review to survival, bone level, soft-tissue, aesthetics and patient satisfaction. J Clin Periodontol 2008;35:1073-86.
Sonoyama W, Kuboki T, Okamoto S, Suzuki H, Arakawa H, Kanyama M, et al
. Quality of life assessment in patients with implant-supported and resin-bonded fixed prosthesis for bounded edentulous spaces. Clin Oral Implants Res 2002;13:359-64.
Narby B, Bagewitz IC, Soderfeldt B. Factors explaining desire for dental implant therapy: Analysis of the results from a longitudinal study. Int J Prosthodont 2011;24:437-44.
de Bruyn H, Collaert B, Lindén U, Björn AL. Patient’s opinion and treatment outcome of fixed rehabilitation on Brånemark implants. A 3-year follow-up study in private dental practices. Clin Oral Implants Res 1997;8:265-71.
Hongxing L, List T, Nilsson IM, Johansson A, Astrøm AN. Validity and reliability of OIDP and OHIP-14: A survey of Chinese high school students. BMC Oral Health 2014;14:158.
Heng D, Zou N, Liu H, Huang H, Yang G, Chen L, et al
. Satisfaction analysis of patients with single implant treatments based on a questionnaire survey. Patient Prefer Adherence 2019;13:695-704.
de Lima EA, dos Santos MB, Marchini L. Patients’ expectations of and satisfaction with implant-supported fixed partial dentures and single crowns. Int J Prosthodont 2012;25:484-90.