Dergiler / Clinical Dentistry and Research / 2019 / Cilt: 43 - Sayı: 3

ASSESSMENT OF PATIENT-BASED OUTCOMES FOLLOWING DENTAL IMPLANT TREATMENT

DENTAL İMPLANT TEDAVİSİ SONRASI HASTAYA BAĞLI SONUÇLARIN DEĞERLENDİRİLMESİ

Sayfa
117–124
DOI
—
🏛️Bu makalenin bibliyografik verileri ve tam metin bağlantısı DergiPark üzerinden sağlanmıştır.
DergiPark Kaydı ↗
✨

Yapay Zeka Hızlı Bakış & Çıkarımlar

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(1 Cümlede Hızlı Çıkarım)

Conclusion: It is crucial to take different parameters into account as well as the expectations of patients in order to improve success rates of dental implant treatment.

📌 3 Maddede Bu Makale

🎯
Amaç & Hipotez:Background and Aim: The aim of the present study is to evaluate the level of satisfaction of patients after dental implant therapy in edentulous and partially edentulous patients and to investigate the impact of demographic features and the type of prosthesis on outcomes.
📊
Temel Bulgular & Veri:Materials and Methods: The study sample consisted of 150 consecutive participants over 18 years of age with a total of 647 dental implants.
💡
Sonuç & Katkı:Conclusion: It is crucial to take different parameters into account as well as the expectations of patients in order to improve success rates of dental implant treatment.
🔬Tür:Uygulamalı Anket & Alan Araştırması
📍Kapsam:Genişletilmiş Akademik Örneklem
⚙️Değişkenler:Alan Parametreleri

Özet

Background and Aim: The aim of the present study is to evaluate the level of satisfaction of patients after dental implant therapy in edentulous and partially edentulous patients and to investigate the impact of demographic features and the type of prosthesis on outcomes. A cross-sectional oral health survey was conducted. Materials and Methods: The study sample consisted of 150 consecutive participants over 18 years of age with a total of 647 dental implants. The satisfaction scores of participants were evaluated in the questionnaire on a 7-point Likert scale in terms of mastication, phonetics, aesthetic appearance, comfort, maintenance of dental hygiene, and cost-effectiveness. Results: A significantly higher degree of satisfaction was demonstrated among patients with implant-supported fixed prostheses regarding chewing, feeling comfortable during conversation, and the cost of treatment in contrast to that among patients with implant-supported overdentures (p=0.032, p<0.001, and p=0.044; respectively). However, the maintenance of good oral hygiene was more effective in patients with implant-supported overdentures (p=0.034). Majority of the patients stated that the treatment outcomes had met their expectations in terms of phonation, chewing function, and aesthetic look (92%, 71%, and 68%; respectively). The present study demonstrated that the satisfaction levels were correlated with the type of prosthesis and gender. Additionally, this study indicated that most of the patients had difficulty in maintaining good dental hygiene. Nevertheless, they were satisfied with the functional outcomes. Conclusion: It is crucial to take different parameters into account as well as the expectations of patients in order to improve success rates of dental implant treatment.

Abstract

Amaç: Bu çalışmanın amacı, tam ve yarı dişsiz hastalarda dental implant tedavisi sonrası hastaların memnuniyet derecelerinin değerlendirilmesidir. Ayrıca, demografik özelliklerin ve protez tiplerinin sonuçlar üzerindeki etkisini araştırmaktır. Çalışma kesitsel olarak yürütülmüştür. Gereç ve Yöntem: Çalışmaya 18 yaşını doldurmuş 150 hasta dahil edilmiştir. Toplamda 647 dental implant incelenmiştir. Katılımcıların konuşma, çiğneme fonksiyonu, estetik görünüm, konfor, oral hijyenin sağlanması ve maliyet açısından memnuniyet puanları 7-nokta Likert skalası içeren anket ile değerlendirilmiştir. Bulgular: İmplant destekli hareketli protez kullanan hastaların aksine, implant destekli sabit proteze sahip hastalarda çiğneme fonksiyonları, konuşma esnasındaki konfor ve tedavi maliyeti değerlendirildiğinde, memnuniyet oranlarının anlamlı olarak daha fazla olduğu saptanmıştır. (p=0.032, p<0.001 ve p=0.044; sırasıyla). Ancak, oral hijyenin implant destekli hareketli protez kullanan hastalarda daha iyi sağlandığı gösterilmiştir (p=0.034). Hastaların çoğunluğu tedavi sonuçlarının, konuşma, çiğneme fonksiyonu ve estetik görünüm açısından beklentilerini karşıladığını belirtmiştir (%92, %71 ve %68; sırasıyla). Bu çalışmada memnuniyet seviyelerinin protez tipi ve cinsiyet ile ilişkili olduğu gösterilmiştir. Ayrıca, hastaların çoğu fonksiyonel sonuçlardan memnun iken, oral hijyeni sağlamada güçlük çekmektedir. Sonuçlar: Dental implant tedavisinde başarı oranlarını arttırmak için hastaların beklentileri ile birlikte pek çok parametreyi de göz önünde bulundurmak oldukça önemlidir.

🔖

Bu Makaleye Atıf Yap

KÜÇÜKGÜVEN, M. B., SAYSEL, M. Y., TOSUN, E. (2019). ASSESSMENT OF PATIENT-BASED OUTCOMES FOLLOWING DENTAL IMPLANT TREATMENT. Clinical Dentistry and Research, Cilt: 43 - Sayı: 3, 117–124. https://ajindex.com/articles/143297

📄 Tam Metin PDF Okuyucu

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

Kaynakça (11)

  1. Walia K, Belludi SA, Kulkarni P, Darak P, Swamy S. A Comparative and a Qualitative Analysis of Patient’s Motivations, Expectations and Satisfaction with Dental Implants. J Clin Diagn Res 2016; 10: 23-26.
  2. Alam MK, Rahman SA, Basri R, Sing Yi TT, Si-Jie JW, Saha S. Dental Implants - Perceiving Patients’ Satisfaction in Relation to Clinical and Electromyography Study on Implant Patients. PLoS One 2015; 10(10): e0140438. Derks J, Hakansson J, Wennstrom JL, Tomasi C, Larsson M, Berglundh T. Effectiveness of implant therapy analyzed in a Swedish population: early and late implant loss. J Dent Res 2015; 94(3 Suppl): 44-51.
  3. Levin L, Sadet P, Grossmann Y. A retrospective evaluation of 1,387 single-tooth implants: a 6-year follow-up. J Periodontol 2006; 77: 2080-2083.
  4. Albrektsson T, Donos N, Working G. Implant survival and complications. The Third EAO consensus conference 2012. Clin Oral Implants Res 2012; 23 Suppl 6: 63-65.
  5. Simonis P, Dufour T, Tenenbaum H. Long-term implant survival and success: a 10-16-year follow-up of non-submerged dental implants. Clin Oral Implants Res 2010; 21: 772-777.
  6. Derks J, Hakansson J, Wennstrom JL, Klinge B, Berglundh T. Patientreported outcomes of dental implant therapy in a large randomly selected sample. Clin Oral Implants Res 2015; 26: 586-591.
  7. Trullenque-Eriksson A, Guisado Moya B. Retrospective long-term evaluation of dental implants in totally and partially edentulous patients: part II: periimplant disease. Implant Dent 2015; 24: 217- 221. Lang NP, Zitzmann NU, Working Group 3 of the VEWoP. Clinical research in implant dentistry: evaluation of implant-supported restorations, aesthetic and patient-reported outcomes. J Clin Periodontol 2012; 39 Suppl 12: 133-138.
  8. Bragger U, Karoussis I, Persson R, Pjetursson B, Salvi G, Lang N. Technical and biological complications/failures with single crowns and fixed partial dentures on implants: a 10-year prospective cohort study. Clin Oral Implants Res 2005; 16: 326-334.
  9. Atieh MA, Alsabeeha NH, Faggion CM Jr, Duncan WJ. The frequency of peri-implant diseases: a systematic review and metaanalysis. J Periodontol 2013; 84: 1586-1598.
  10. Winitsky N, Olgart K, Jemt T, Smedberg JI. A retro-prospective long-term follow-up of Branemark single implants in the anterior maxilla in young adults. Part 1: Clinical and radiographic parameters. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res 2018; 20: 937-944.
  11. Simion M, Nevins M, Rasperini G, Tironi F. A 13- to 32-Year Retrospective Study of Bone Stability for Machined Dental Imp