Ghent University Academic Bibliography

Advanced

Disparity in patients' and dentists' satisfaction regarding implant restorative treatment

Filip Martens UGent, Stefan Vandeweghe UGent and Hugo De Bruyn UGent (2011) CLINICAL ORAL IMPLANTS RESEARCH. 22(9). p.995-995
abstract
Background: Cross-arch fixed implant prostheses have a good prognosis. However, information on prosthetic quality and patient’s opinion on treatment outcome is scarce. Aim: The aims of this retrospective study were to describe patient-centered outcomes regarding quality and patient’s opinion of full arch bridges placed on Biomet3i dental implants (Palm Beach Gardens, Fl, USA) and to compare these with the dentist’s opinion. Methods: Patients consecutively treated over the last 4 years with mandibular or maxillary full-arch fixed prostheses on four to seven implants were recalled for an independent quality evaluation and to score patient’s satisfaction. All implants were immediately loaded with a screw-retained metal reinforced acrylic provisional bridge within 48 hours after surgery by one operator. Prosthetic treatments were performed by trainees or staff members. Implant survival, marginal bone level, measured from the abutment-implant interface, quality of implant and prosthetic treatment and patients’ opinion were assessed by means of validated check-lists and OHIP-14 questionnaire. By enlarge, the latter focused on satisfaction and well being. Results: Sxiteen of twenty-two patients attended the examination; 5/120 (4.1%) implants were lost before final reconstruction. During a mean follow-up of 26 (7–48; SD 13.6) months, no further losses occurred, only one provisional bridge needed to be repaired. Mean marginal bone level was 2.1mm (0–3.9; SD 0.7); mean probing pocket depth 3.4mm (2.5–5.5; SD 0.71); 30% of the sites were plaque-free and 11% showed no bleeding. For patients’ opinion see table 1. The clinician rated the prostheses perfect in 37% for design, 50% for fit, 46% for occlusion/articulation and 31% for esthetics. The overall score was perfect in 31%. The mean satisfaction score for the dentist and patient were, respectively, 39% and 72%. There was a significant discrepancy in quality assessment on esthetics and overall score between clinician and patient (P < 0.005 – Wilcoxon signed-rank test). Conclusions and clinical implications: Patients deem their fullarch fixed prostheses on implants as satisfactory and of acceptable quality. Most patients overrated the esthetical aspect and overall score compared with the dentist. Implant and prosthetic failure rates are within acceptable limits after a mean functional loading of 2 years certainly given the fact that immediate loading was performed.
Please use this url to cite or link to this publication:
author
organization
year
type
conference
publication status
published
subject
in
CLINICAL ORAL IMPLANTS RESEARCH
Clin. Oral Implants Res.
volume
22
issue
9
article_number
abstract 257
pages
995 - 995
conference name
20th Annual scientific meeting of the European Association for Osseointegration (EAO 2011)
conference location
Athens, Greece
conference start
2011-10-12
conference end
2011-10-15
JCR category
DENTISTRY, ORAL SURGERY & MEDICINE
JCR impact factor
2.514 (2011)
JCR rank
13/81 (2011)
JCR quartile
1 (2011)
ISSN
0905-7161
DOI
10.1111/j.1600-0501.2011.02271.x
language
English
UGent publication?
yes
classification
C3
copyright statement
I have transferred the copyright for this publication to the publisher
id
1976044
handle
http://hdl.handle.net/1854/LU-1976044
date created
2011-12-29 16:08:51
date last changed
2012-01-04 16:13:47
@inproceedings{1976044,
  abstract     = {Background: Cross-arch fixed implant prostheses have a good prognosis. However, information on prosthetic quality and patient{\textquoteright}s opinion on treatment outcome is scarce.
Aim: The aims of this retrospective study were to describe patient-centered outcomes regarding quality and patient{\textquoteright}s opinion of full arch bridges placed on Biomet3i dental implants (Palm Beach Gardens, Fl, USA) and to compare these with the dentist{\textquoteright}s opinion.
Methods: Patients consecutively treated over the last 4 years with mandibular or maxillary full-arch fixed prostheses on four to seven implants were recalled for an independent quality evaluation and to score patient{\textquoteright}s satisfaction. All implants were immediately loaded with a screw-retained metal reinforced acrylic provisional bridge within 48 hours after surgery by one operator. Prosthetic treatments were performed by trainees or staff members. Implant survival, marginal bone level, measured from the abutment-implant interface, quality of implant and prosthetic treatment and patients{\textquoteright} opinion were assessed by means of validated check-lists and OHIP-14 questionnaire. By enlarge, the latter focused on satisfaction and well being.
Results: Sxiteen of twenty-two patients attended the examination; 5/120 (4.1\%) implants were lost before final reconstruction. During a mean follow-up of 26 (7--48; SD 13.6) months, no further losses occurred, only one provisional bridge needed to be repaired. Mean marginal bone level was 2.1mm (0--3.9; SD 0.7); mean probing pocket depth 3.4mm (2.5--5.5; SD 0.71); 30\% of the sites were plaque-free and 11\% showed no bleeding. For patients{\textquoteright} opinion see table 1. The clinician rated the prostheses perfect in 37\% for design, 50\% for fit, 46\% for occlusion/articulation and 31\% for esthetics. The overall score was perfect in 31\%. The mean satisfaction score for the dentist and patient were, respectively, 39\% and 72\%. There was a significant discrepancy in quality assessment on esthetics and overall score between clinician and patient (P {\textlangle} 0.005 -- Wilcoxon signed-rank test).
Conclusions and clinical implications: Patients deem their fullarch fixed prostheses on implants as satisfactory and of acceptable quality. Most patients overrated the esthetical aspect and overall score compared with the dentist. Implant and prosthetic failure rates are within acceptable limits after a mean functional loading of 2 years certainly given the fact that immediate loading was performed.},
  articleno    = {abstract 257},
  author       = {Martens, Filip and Vandeweghe, Stefan and De Bruyn, Hugo},
  booktitle    = {CLINICAL ORAL IMPLANTS RESEARCH},
  issn         = {0905-7161},
  language     = {eng},
  location     = {Athens, Greece},
  number       = {9},
  pages        = {abstract 257:995--abstract 257:995},
  title        = {Disparity in patients' and dentists' satisfaction regarding implant restorative treatment},
  url          = {http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-0501.2011.02271.x},
  volume       = {22},
  year         = {2011},
}

Chicago
Martens, Filip, Stefan Vandeweghe, and Hugo De Bruyn. 2011. “Disparity in Patients’ and Dentists' Satisfaction Regarding Implant Restorative Treatment.” In Clinical Oral Implants Research, 22:995–995.
APA
Martens, F., Vandeweghe, S., & De Bruyn, H. (2011). Disparity in patients’ and dentists' satisfaction regarding implant restorative treatment. CLINICAL ORAL IMPLANTS RESEARCH (Vol. 22, pp. 995–995). Presented at the 20th Annual scientific meeting of the European Association for Osseointegration (EAO 2011).
Vancouver
1.
Martens F, Vandeweghe S, De Bruyn H. Disparity in patients’ and dentists' satisfaction regarding implant restorative treatment. CLINICAL ORAL IMPLANTS RESEARCH. 2011. p. 995–995.
MLA
Martens, Filip, Stefan Vandeweghe, and Hugo De Bruyn. “Disparity in Patients’ and Dentists' Satisfaction Regarding Implant Restorative Treatment.” Clinical Oral Implants Research. Vol. 22. 2011. 995–995. Print.