Satisfaction and quality of life with palatal positioned implants
in severely atrophic maxillae versus conventional
implants supporting fixed full-arch prostheses |
| |
| Authors: | Eugenia Candel-Marti David Pe?arrocha-Oltra Maria Pe?arrocha-Diago Miguel Pe?arrocha-Diago |
| |
| Institution: | 1.Professor of the Master in Oral Surgery and Implantology, Stomatology Department, Faculty of Medicine and Dentistry, University of Valencia, Valencia, Spain;2.Full Professor of Oral Surgery, Stomatology Department, Faculty of Medicine and Dentistry, University of Valencia, Valencia, Spain;3.Chairman of Oral Surgery, Director of the Master in Oral Surgery and Implantology, Stomatology Department, Faculty of Medicine and Dentistry, University of Valencia, Valencia, Spain |
| |
| Abstract: | BackgroundTo evaluate satisfaction and quality of life in patients with palatal positioned implants supporting fixed full-arch prostheses to rehabilitate edentulous maxillae with horizontal atrophy and compare them with conventional well-centered implants placed in non-atrophic supporting fixed full-arch prostheses.Material and MethodsA clinical retrospective study was performed of patients that were rehabilitated with full-arch fixed implant-supported maxillary prostheses and had a minimum follow-up of 5 years after implant loading. Patients were divided into 2 groups: patients with class IV maxilla according to Cawood and Howell and treated with palatal positioned implants (test) and with class III maxilla and treated with implants well-centered in the alveolar ridge and completely surrounded by bone (control). Ten-cm visual analogue scales (VAS) (range 1-10) and the OHIP-14 (Oral Health Impact Profile) questionnaire were used respectively to estimate patient satisfaction and quality of life after implant therapy. Statistical analysis was performed applying Mann-Whitney Test using alpha set at 0.05.ResultsMean global and specific satisfaction – except for self-esteem – were superior for the test group than the control group, although differences were not statistically significant. Regarding quality of life, the reported incidence of problems was lower in the test group for all the studied ítems except for ‘problems at work’. However, differences were not statistically significant in any case.ConclusionsDespite the limitations of the study (retrospective and nonrandomized design) the results suggest that the prosthesis design needed to rehabilitate palatally positioned implants (more coverage of palate) does not lead to lower satisfaction and quality of life of patients, compared to patients treated with implants placed centered and conventional design prostheses that do not cover the palate.
Key words:Atrophic maxilla, palatal implants, satisfaction, quality of life. |
| |
| Keywords: | |
|
|
