Evaluation of the Oral Health-Related Quality of Life in Edentulous Patients Treated with Implant-Supported Prostheses: A Cross-Sectional Study

Işıl Buyukhatipoglu; Derya Doğan Evlice; Fatih Sarı; Derya Gürsel Sürmelioğlu

doi:10.7126/cumudj.1683953

EN

Evaluation of the Oral Health-Related Quality of Life in Edentulous Patients Treated with Implant-Supported Prostheses: A Cross-Sectional Study

Abstract

Objectives: Assessing the satisfaction of edentulous patients treated with implant-supported fixed or removable prosthetic dentures, as opposed to various other prosthetic designs, is crucial for comprehending their perceptions and attitudes towards the effectiveness of different implant treatment options. Materials and methods: The study evaluated 38 participants over 5 years (± 0.5 years) using 226 implants supported by either removable or fixed prostheses between February 1, 2023, and May 25, 2023 face to face. Each participant had at least 5 years (± 0.5 years) of experience with their dentures. The participants were evenly divided into three groups based on the type of dental prosthetic design. Group 1 consisted of 13 participants with a mandibular two-implant retained overdenture opposing a maxillary complete denture. Group 2 included 13 participants with maxillary and mandibular four-implant-retained fixed full-arch dentures. Group 3 comprised 12 participants with a mandibular and maxillary four-implant-retained overdenture retained by a bar attachment system. All patients were recalled to the clinic and asked to complete the OHIP-14 questionnaire and the VAS scale. Assessments were conducted 5 years (± 0.5 years) post-implant loading. Data comparison between the groups was conducted using Kruskal-Wallis tests, with statistical significance set at p < 0.05. Results: The study included 38 participants, with an average age of 62.11 ± 6.78 years. All patients showed high satisfaction with implant-supported prosthetic restorations five years (± 0.5 years) after implant loading. The average Oral Health Impact Profile (OHIP-14) score was 8.79 (SD ± 11.26), and the mean Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) scores stood at 88.57% for the cohort. Ohıp-14 data comparison across the groups, conducted using Kruskal-Wallis tests, showed no significant statistical difference in the quality-of-life measures. The VAS analysis revealed no significant difference among the groups (p > 0.05) in all comparisons at the 5% significance level, except for the phonetics variable (p=0.034). Conclusions: This clinical investigation demonstrates that edentulous patients, whether treated with removable or fixed implant-supported prostheses, show consistent satisfaction with their dentures as measured by OHIP-14 results.

Keywords

References

1. Feine JS, Carlsson GE, Awad MA, Chehade A, Duncan WJ, Gizani S, et al. The McGill consensus statement on overdentures. Mandibular two-implant overdentures as first choice standard of care for edentulous patients. Montreal, Quebec, May 24-25, 2002. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants, 17(4), 601–602.
2. Hartmann R, Bandeira ACFM, Araújo SC, Brägger U, Schimmel M, Leles CR. A parallel 3-group randomised clinical trial comparing different implant treatment options for the edentulous mandible: 1-year effects on dental patient-reported outcomes and chewing function. J Oral Rehabil, 2020;47(10):1264–1277.
3. Schimmel M, Araujo M, Abou-Ayash S, Buser R, Ebenezer S, Fonseca M, et al. Group 4 ITI Consensus Report: Patient benefits following implant treatment in partially and fully edentulous patients. Clin Oral Impl Res 2023;34(Suppl. 26):257–265.
4. Zani SR, Rivaldo EG, Frasca LCF, Caye LF. Oral health impact profile and prosthetic condition in edentulous patients rehabilitated with implant-supported overdentures and fixed prostheses. J Oral Sci 2009;51:535–543.
5. Locker D. Patient-based assessment of the outcomes of implant therapy: a review of the literature. Int J Prosthodont 1998;11:453–461.
6. Gherlone EF, Sannino G, Rapanelli A, Crespi R, Gastaldi G, Capparé P, et al. Prefabricated bar system for immediate loading in edentulous patients: a 5-year follow-up prospective longitudinal study. Biomed Res Int 2018;2018:7352125.
7. Bhering CL, Mesquita MF, Kemmoku DT, Noritomi PY, Consani RL, Barão VA, et al. Comparison between all-on-four and all-on-six treatment concepts and framework material on stress distribution in atrophic maxilla: a prototyping guided 3D-FEA study. Mater Sci Eng C Mater Biol Appl 2016;69:715–725.
8. Davis DM. Role of implants in the treatment of edentulous patients. Int J Prosthodont 1990;3:42–50

9. Raghoebar GM, Meijer HJ, van't Hof M, Stegenga B, Vissink A. A randomized prospective clinical trial on the effectiveness of three treatment modalities for patients with lower denture problems. A 10-year follow-up study on patient satisfaction. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2003;32:498–503.
10. Trakas T, Michalakis K, Kang K, Hirayama H. Attachment systems for implant retained overdentures: a literature review. Implant Dent 2006;15:24–34.
11. Oh SH, Kim Y, Park JY, Jung YJ, Kim SK, Park SY. Comparison of fixed implant-supported prostheses, removable implant-supported prostheses, and complete dentures: patient satisfaction and oral health-related quality of life. Clin Oral Implants Res 2016;27(2):e31–e37.
12. Demir E, Özel G, İnan Ö, Dolanmaz D. Analysis of satisfaction levels in completely edentulous patients treated with different configurations of implant-supported prostheses. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2024;39(5):776–782.
13. Johar AO. Clinical performance of implant overdenture versus fixed detachable prosthesis. J Contemp Dent Pract 2018;19(12):1480–1486.
14. Zitzmann NU, Marinello CP. Treatment outcomes of fixed or removable implant-supported prostheses in the edentulous maxilla. Part I: patients' assessments. J Prosthet Dent 2000;83(4):424–433.
15. Borges GA, Barbin T, Dini C, Maia LC, Magno MB, Barão VAR, Mesquita MF. Patient-reported outcome measures and clinical assessment of implant-supported overdentures and fixed prostheses in mandibular edentulous patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Prosthet Dent 2022;127(4):565–577.
16. Misch CE, Perel ML, Wang HL, Sammartino G, Galindo-Moreno P, Trisi P, et al. Implant success, survival, and failure: the International Congress of Oral Implantologists (ICOI) Pisa Consensus Conference. Implant Dent 2008;17(1):5–15.
17. Lee K, Dam C, Huh J, Park KM, Kim SY, Park W. Distribution of medical status and medications in elderly patients treated with dental implant surgery covered by national healthcare insurance in Korea. J Dent Anesth Pain Med. 2017;17(2):113–119.
18. Mumcu G, Inanc N, Ergun T, Ikiz K, Gunes M, Islek U, et al. Oral health-related quality of life is affected by disease activity in Behçet's disease affects oral health-related quality of life. Oral Dis. 2006;12(2):145–151.
19. Wang Y, Bäumer D, Ozga AK, Körner G, Bäumer A. Patient satisfaction and oral health-related quality of life 10 years after implant placement. BMC Oral Health 2021;21(1):30.
20. Chochlidakis K, Einarsdottir E, Tsigarida A, Papaspyridakos P, Romeo D, Barmak AB, et al. Survival rates and prosthetic complications of implant fixed complete dental prostheses: an up to 5-year retrospective study. J Prosthet Dent 2020; 124: 539–546.
21. Nikellis T, Lampraki E, Romeo D, Tsigarida A, Barmak AB, Malamou C, et al. Survival rates, patient satisfaction, and prosthetic complications of implant fixed complete dental prostheses: a 12-month prospective study. J Prosthodont 2023;32(3):214–220.
22. Feine J, Abou-Ayash S, Al Mardini M, de Santana RB, Bjelke-Holtermann T, Bornstein MM, et al. Group 3 ITI Consensus Report: Patient-reported outcome measures associated with implant dentistry. Clin Oral Implants Res 2018;29 Suppl 16:270–275.
23. Goodacre C, Goodacre B. Fixed vs removable complete arch implant prostheses: a literature review of prosthodontic outcomes. Eur J Oral Implantol 2017;10 Suppl 1:13–34.
24. Felice P, Bertacci A, Bonifazi L, Karaban M, Canullo L, Pistilli R, et al. A proposed protocol for ordinary and extraordinary hygienic maintenance in different implant prosthetic scenarios. Appl Sci 2021;11:2957.
25. Tosun B, Uysal N. Examination of oral health quality of life and patient satisfaction in removable denture wearers with OHIP-14 scale and visual analog scale: a cross-sectional study. BMC Oral Health 2024;24(1):1353.
26. Čelebić A, Knezović-Zlatarić D, Papić M, Carek V, Baučić I, Stipetić J. Factors related to patient satisfaction with complete denture therapy. J Gerontol A Biol Sci Med Sci 2003;58(10):M948–M953.
27. Erić J, Šojić LT, Bjelović L, Tsakos G, Tihaček Šojić L. Changes in oral health related quality of life (ohrqol) and satisfaction with conventional complete dentures among elderly people. Oral Health Prev Dent 2017;15(3):237–244.
28. Koçak İ, Kunt GE, Ceylan G. Comparing the efficiency of mandibular implant-retained complete dentures and conventional complete dentures among elderly edentulous patients: satisfaction and quality of life. J Int Dent Sci 2021;7(2):27–34.
29. Almasri MA. A 5-year satisfaction outcome study of patients receiving six-implant-supported fixed prosthesis. Clin Pract 2021;11(4):827–834.
30. Das KP, Jahangiri L, Katz RV. The first-choice standard of care for an edentulous mandible: a Delphi method survey of academic prosthodontists in the United States. J Am Dent Assoc 2012;143(8):881–889.
31. Messias A, Nicolau P, Guerra F. Different interventions for rehabilitation of the edentulous maxilla with implant-supported prostheses: an overview of systematic reviews. Int J Prosthodont 2021;34:s63–s84.
32. Abou-Ayash S, Fonseca M, Pieralli S, Reissmann DR. Treatment effect of implant-supported fixed complete dentures and implant overdentures on patient-reported outcomes: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Clin Oral Implants Res 2023;34 Suppl 26:177–195.
33. Kimura A, Arakawa H, Noda K, Yamazaki S, Hara ES, Mino T, et al. Response shift in oral health-related quality of life measurement in patients with partial edentulism. J Oral Rehabil 2012;39(1):44–54.
34. Duong HY, Roccuzzo A, Stähli A, Salvi GE, Lang NP, Sculean A. Oral health-related quality of life of patients rehabilitated with fixed and removable implant-supported dental prostheses. Periodontol 2000 2022;88(1):201–237.
35. Erol BF, Ayyıldız S, Baysal N. The effect of different prosthetic treatments on anxiety and quality of life-related to oral health. J Soc Anal Health 2022;2(3):292–298.
36. Degirmenci K, Kalaycioglu O. Evaluation of quality of life and oral hygiene attitudes of individuals using dental prostheses during the COVID-19 pandemic. J Prosthet Dent 2021;126(1):51.e1–51.e7.
37. Yao J, Tang H, Gao XL, McGrath C, Mattheos N. Patients’ expectations to a dental implant: a systematic review of the literature. Health Qual Life Outcomes 2014;12:153.
38. Mumcu E, Dayan SC, Genceli E, Geckili O. Comparison of four-implant-retained overdentures and implant-supported fixed prostheses using the All-on-4 concept in the maxilla in terms of patient satisfaction, quality of life, and marginal bone loss: a 2-year retrospective study. Quintessence Int 2020;51(5):388–396.
39. Coltro M, Villarinho EA, Ozkomur A, Shinkai RS. Long-term impact of implant-supported oral rehabilitation on quality of life: a 5 years prospective study. Aust Dent J 2022;67(2):172–177.
40. Fonteyne E, Burms E, Matthys C, Van Lierde K, De Bruyn H. Four-implant-supported overdenture treatment in the maxilla. Part II: Speech- and oral health-related quality of life in patients with implant-supported overdentures in the maxilla-a prospective 3-year follow-up. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res 2021;23(5):680–691.
41. Thumati P, Reddy M, Mahantshetty M, Manwani R. “All-On-4/ DIEM 2” A concept to rehabilitate completely resorbed edentulous arches. J Dent Implant 5(1):76–81.
42. Uesugi T, Shimoo Y, Munakata M, Sato D, Yamaguchi K, Fujimaki M, et al. The All-on-four concept for fixed full-arch rehabilitation of the edentulous maxilla and mandible: a longitudinal study in Japanese patients with 3-17-year follow-up and analysis of risk factors for survival rate. Int J Implant Dent 2023;9(1):43.
43. Di P, Lin Y, Li JH, Luo J, Qiu LX, Chen B, et al. The All-on-Four implant therapy protocol in the management of edentulous Chinese patients. J Prosthodont 2013;26(6):509–516.
44. Gonçalves GSY, de Magalhães KMF, Rocha EP, Dos Santos PH, Assunção WG. Oral health-related quality of life and satisfaction in edentulous patients rehabilitated with implant-supported full dentures all-on-four concept: a systematic review. Clin Oral Investig 2022;26(1):83-94.
45. Aktaş G, Güncü M, Canay Ş. İki implant üstü locator tutuculu tam protez kullanan hastalar: Bir yıllık klinik takip. Cumhuriyet Dental Journal 2015;18 (4):351–358.
46. Kuoppala R, Näpänkangas R, Raustia A. Quality of life of patients treated with implant-supported mandibular overdentures evaluated with the oral health impact profile (ohip-14): a survey of 58 patients. J Oral Maxillofac Res 2013;4(2): e4.
47. Sailer I, Karasan D, Todorovic A, Ligoutsikou M, Pjetursson BE. Prosthetic failures in dental implant therapy. Periodontol 2000 2022;88(1):130–144.
48. Karadayı Yüzükcü AE, Yerliyurt K. How important are the implant inclination and the infrastructure material used in implant supported fixed prostheses? Cumhuriyet Dent J 2021;24:4:395–402.
49. Montero J, Manzano G, Beltrán D, Lynch CD, Suárez-García MJ, Castillo-Oyagüe R. Clinical evaluation of the incidence of prosthetic complications in implant crowns constructed with UCLA castable abutments. A cohort follow-up study. J Dent 2012;40(12):1081–1089.
50. Parakh MK, Krishna PD, Demeri F. Oral health related quality of life in first time complete denture wearers using balanced, monoplane and group function occlusion. Cumhuriyet Dent J 2022;25(4):291–295.

Details

Primary Language

English

Subjects

Oral Implantology , Prosthodontics , Dental Public Health

Journal Section

Research Article

Authors

Işıl Buyukhatipoglu ^*
0000-0001-7519-2324
Türkiye

Derya Doğan Evlice
0009-0001-6313-7616
Türkiye

Fatih Sarı
0000-0002-4818-8562
Türkiye

Derya Gürsel Sürmelioğlu
0000-0002-6034-3131
Türkiye

Publication Date

December 29, 2025

Submission Date

April 25, 2025

Acceptance Date

July 22, 2025

Published in Issue

Year 2025 Volume: 28 Number: 4

DOI

https://doi.org/10.7126/cumudj.1683953

IZ

https://izlik.org/JA66RG97XD

Cite

RIS / Bibtex

EndNote

Buyukhatipoglu I, Doğan Evlice D, Sarı F, Gürsel Sürmelioğlu D (December 1, 2025) Evaluation of the Oral Health-Related Quality of Life in Edentulous Patients Treated with Implant-Supported Prostheses: A Cross-Sectional Study. Cumhuriyet Dental Journal 28 4 475–482.

Öz

Evaluation of the Oral Health-Related Quality of Life in Edentulous Patients Treated with Implant-Supported Prostheses: A Cross-Sectional Study

Abstract

Keywords

References

Details

Primary Language

Subjects

Journal Section

Authors

Publication Date

Submission Date

Acceptance Date

Published in Issue

DOI

IZ

Cite