Journal of implantology and applied sciences ISSN:2765-7833(Print) 2765-7841(Online) 대한구강악안면임플란트학회지

The advent of implants has dramatically changed our view of the complete denture, single tooth replacement, and full-mouth fixed restoration. However, no surveys have been conducted regarding patient satisfaction with dental implant treatment in the distal extension missing areas. This study examined patient satisfaction with implant supported fixed prostheses and conventional removable partial dentures (RPDs) in the distal extension missing areas. Forty-two subjects with implant-supported fixed prostheses and 37 subjects with conventional RPDs were identified and included in the study. Patients rated their overall satisfaction and other features of their prostheses (comfort, esthetics, chewing ability, speech, stability, oral hygiene, treatment experience, treatment fee, treatment period and visit frequency, and self-confidence) on 100 mm visual analogue scales(VAS) over 2 months after delivery. Subjects in both groups were asked of a questionnaire consisting of 41 items focused on various clinical factors related to treatment outcome, such as oral function and patient satisfaction. Within the limitations of this study, the following results were drawn: 1. The implant group had a better overall satisfaction than the conventional RPD but there were no significant differences. The implant group had a significantly higher scores on comfort, esthetics, speech, stability, treatment experience, and self-confidence. The conventional RPD group had a better overall satisfaction than the implant in oral hygiene, treatment fee, treatment period and visit frequency, but no statistically significant differences were observed in oral hygiene, and treatment period and visit frequency. 2. In function period, the implant group had a higher satisfaction than the conventional RPD except for the period from 1 year to 2 year but in more than 2 years only, a statistically better satisfaction (Ρ=0.027). 3. In all missing areas, the implant group had a higher satisfaction than the conventional RPD, but in the mandible of Kennedy class 1 only, a statistically better satisfaction (Ρ=0.043). 4. The conventional RPD subjects who had experienced previous removable denture, had lower satisfaction and the implant subjects who had experienced previous removable denture, slightly higher satisfaction was found but notsignificantly different. 5. The variables that were of primary importance in the implant patient satisfaction were stability, treatment fee and self-confidence (Ρ<0.0001), and in the denture patient satisfaction, were comfort (Ρ<0.0001). In conclusion, the use of osseointegrated implants as abutments for fixed partial dentures can be a predictable restorative alternative for the distal extension missing areas.