Assessment of Edentulous Patients’ Knowledge and Awareness of Treatment Options With and Without Dental Implants

Abstract

Background and Aims: To assess the knowledge and awareness levels of edentulous patients regarding both dental implant-supported and non-implant treatment options. Methods: A total of 190 adults with complete edentulism, from both sexes, were included using a criterion sampling method. Data were collected using a structured questionnaire, developed de novo by the authors, consisting of 19 multiple-choice, closed-ended questions. Each item employed a five-point rating scale, ranging from ‘strongly disagree’ to ‘strongly agree’ and from ‘very aware’ to ‘not aware at all.’ The validation process was conducted using Lawshe’s Content Validity Index (CVI). Descriptive statistics were used to analyze socio-demographic data. Group comparisons were performed using chi-square tests across variables such as age, sex, education level, denture use, and duration of edentulism. Fisher’s exact test and Z-tests were used where appropriate. Results: Participants had a median age of 65 years, and 55.3% were female. Awareness of dental treatment options was generally limited; 45.2% lacked knowledge of implant-supported options. No significant differences in knowledge and awareness were found based on demographic factors (p > .05). However, individuals with only primary education and those without dentures were more likely to be unaware. Additionally, older participants (aged 71 and above) showed greater uncertainty about the surgical requirements of implant-supported options. Conclusion: Awareness of dental prosthetic options, particularly dental implants, was generally low among edentulous adults, especially those with lower education levels and without dentures. Targeted educational efforts are needed to improve understanding of implant-based treatments and support informed decision-making in this population.

Keywords

• Dental implants
• Edentulism
• Implant supported dental prosthesis
• Oral health

Tam Dişsiz Hastaların Dental İmplant İçeren ya da İçermeyen Tedavi Seçeneklerine İlişkin Bilgi ve Farkındalıklarının Değerlendirilmesi

Abstract

Amaç: Dişsiz hastaların diş implantı destekli ve implant dışı tedavi seçenekleri hakkındaki bilgi ve farkındalık düzeylerini değerlendirmek. Yöntemler: Kriter örnekleme yöntemi kullanılarak, her iki cinsiyetten toplam 190 tam dişsiz yetişkin çalışmaya dahil edildi. Veriler, yazarlar tarafından yeni geliştirilen, 19 çoktan seçmeli, kapalı uçlu sorudan oluşan yapılandırılmış bir anket kullanılarak toplandı. Her bir madde, “kesinlikle katılmıyorum”dan “kesinlikle katılıyorum”a ve “çok farkındayım”dan “hiç farkında değilim”e kadar uzanan beş puanlık bir derecelendirme ölçeği kullanıldı. Doğrulama süreci, Lawshe’nin İçerik Geçerlilik Endeksi (CVI) kullanılarak gerçekleştirildi. Sosyo-demografik verilerin analizi için tanımlayıcı istatistikler kullanıldı. Grup karşılaştırmaları, yaş, cinsiyet, eğitim düzeyi, protez kullanımı ve dişsizlik süresi gibi değişkenler üzerinde ki-kare testleri kullanılarak gerçekleştirildi. Uygun olduğu durumlarda Fisher’ın kesin testi ve Z testleri kullanıldı. Bulgular: Katılımcıların yaş ortalaması 65 idi ve %55,3’ü kadındı. Diş tedavisi seçenekleri konusunda farkındalık genel olarak sınırlıydı; %45,2’si implant destekli seçenekler hakkında bilgi sahibi değildi. Demografik faktörlere göre bilgi ve farkındalık açısından anlamlı bir fark bulunmamıştır (p > .05). Ancak, sadece ilköğretim eğitimi almış ve protez kullanmayan bireyler farkında olma olasılığı daha düşüktü. Ayrıca, yaşlı katılımcılar (71 yaş ve üzeri) implant destekli seçeneklerin cerrahi gereklilikleri konusunda daha fazla belirsizlik göstermiştir. Sonuç: Protetik tedavi seçenekleri, özellikle implantlar hakkında farkındalık, dişsiz yetişkinler arasında, özellikle de eğitim düzeyi düşük ve protezi olmayanlar arasında genel olarak düşüktü. Bu popülasyonda implant tabanlı tedaviler hakkında bilgiyi artırmak ve bilinçli karar vermeyi desteklemek için hedefli eğitim çabaları gereklidir.

Keywords

• Dental implant
• Edentulizm
• İmplant Destekli Dental Protez
• Ağız Sağlığı

References

1. 1. Clark WA, Sequeira V. Treatment of the Completely Edentulous Patient with Removable Prosthesis. Dent Clin North Am. 2025;69(2):231-255. doi:10.1016/j.cden.2024.11.006
2. 2. Nascimento GG, Alves-Costa S, Romandini M. Burden of severe periodontitis and edentulism in 2021, with projections up to 2050: The Global Burden of Disease 2021 study. J Periodontal Res. 2024;59(5):823-867. doi:10.1111/jre.13337
3. 3. Jawad S. The edentulous patient: the impact of implants on quality of life. Prim Dent J. 2024;13(3):91-98. doi:10.1177/20501684241283099
4. 4. Breıne U, Johansson B, Roylance Pj, Roeckert H, Yoffey Jm. Regeneratıon Of Bone Marrow. A Clınıcal And Experımental Study Followıng Removal Of Bone Marrow By Curettage. Acta Anat (Basel). 1964;59:1–46.
5. 5. Arora K, Kaur N, Kaur G, Garg U. Knowledge, Awareness, and Attitude in Using Dental Implants as an Option in Replacing Missing Teeth Among Dental Patients: Survey-Based Research in a Dental Teaching Hospital in Derabassi, Punjab. Cureus. 2022 Jul 21;
6. 6. Srinivasan M, Kamnoedboon P, Angst L, Müller F. Oral function in completely edentulous patients rehabilitated with implant-supported dental prostheses: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2023;34 Suppl 26:196-239. doi:10.1111/clr.14068
7. 7. Agliardi EL, Pozzi A, Romeo D, Del Fabbro M. Clinical outcomes of full-arch immediate fixed prostheses supported by two axial and two tilted implants: A retrospective cohort study with 12-15 years of follow-up. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2023;34(4):351-366. doi:10.1111/clr.14047
8. 8. Pjetursson BE, Brägger U, Lang NP, Zwahlen M. Comparison of survival and complication rates of tooth-supported fixed dental prostheses (FDPs) and implant-supported FDPs and single crowns (SCs). Clin Oral Implants Res. 2007;18 Suppl 3:97-113. doi:10.1111/j.1600-0501.2007.01439.x

9. 9. Müller F, Salem K, Barbezat C, Herrmann FR, Schimmel M. Knowledge and attitude of elderly persons towards dental implants. Gerodontology. 2012;29(2):e914-e923. doi:10.1111/j.1741-2358.2011.00586.x
10. 10. Donatsky O. Osseointegrated dental implants with ball attachments supporting overdentures in patients with mandibular alveolar ridge atrophy. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 1993;8(2):162-166.
11. 11. Feine JS, Carlsson GE, Awad MA, et al. The McGill consensus statement on overdentures. Mandibular two-implant overdentures as first choice standard of care for edentulous patients. Gerodontology. 2002;19(1):3-4.
12. 12. Vere J, Bhakta S, Patel R. Implant-retained overdentures: a review. Dent Update. 2012;39(5):370-375. doi:10.12968/denu.2012.39.5.370
13. 13. Davut U, Özyılmaz Öy. Evaluation of Patients’ Awareness Levels Regarding Implant And Implant-Supported Prosthesis Who were Admitted to Bezmialem Vakıf University Faculty of Dentistry. Bezmialem Science. 2022 Jan 26;10(1):96–103.
14. 14. Sadowsky SJ. Treatment considerations for maxillary implant overdentures: a systematic review. J Prosthet Dent. 2007;97(6):340-348. doi:10.1016/S0022-3913(07)60022-5
15. 15. Güzelce Sultanoğlu E, Dökülmez B, Hürbağ M. Questioning the Awareness of Partially Edentulous Patients About Dental Implants and Implant Supported Dental Prostheses. Cyprus Journal of Medical Sciences. 2025 Mar 14;10(1):62–9.
16. 16. Nitschke I, Krüger K, Jockusch J. Age-related knowledge deficit and attitudes towards oral implants: Survey-based examination of the correlation between patient age and implant therapy awareness. BMC Oral Health. 2024;24(1):403. Published 2024 Mar 29. doi:10.1186/s12903-024-04134-8
17. 17. Al-Rafee MA. The epidemiology of edentulism and the associated factors: A literature Review. J Family Med Prim Care. 2020;9(4):1841-1843. doi:10.4103/jfmpc.jfmpc_1181_19
18. 18. Saad I, Salem S. Knowledge, awareness, and perception of dental students, interns, and freshly graduated dentists regarding dental implant complications in Saudi Arabia: a web-based anonymous survey. BMC Oral Health. 2021;21(1):161. doi:10.1186/s12903-021-01506-2
19. 19. Şişman AÇ, Acar AH. Artificial intelligence-based chatbot assistance in clinical decision-making for medically complex patients in oral surgery: a comparative study. BMC Oral Health. 2025;25(1):351. doi:10.1186/s12903-025-05732-w
20. 20. Jackson DL. Revisiting Sample Size and Number of Parameter Estimates: Some Support for the N:q Hypothesis. Struct Equ Modeling. 2003 Jan;10(1):128–41.
21. 21. Durmuş E. Ortaöğretim kurumlarında öğretmenlerin aile katılımıyla ilgili görüşlerinin incelenmesi: İstanbul-Sultanbeyli örneği. [Istanbul]: Istanbul Aydın Üniversitesi; 2016.
22. 22. Barot K, Dave B, Patel J, Vaghasiya C, Brahmbhatt H. Awareness and attitude of patients regarding dental implants as a treatment modality, at Kalol Town, Gujarat. Int J Sci Res. 2018;7(4):13–5.
23. 23. Gayathri MM. Knowledge and awareness among patients about dental implants. Journal of Pharmaceutical Sciences and Research. 2016;8(5):351–4.
24. 24. Tepper G, Haas R, Mailath G, et al. Representative marketing-oriented study on implants in the Austrian population. II. Implant acceptance, patient-perceived cost and patient satisfaction. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2003;14(5):634-642. doi:10.1034/j.1600-0501.2003.00917.x
25. 25. Fakheran Esfahani O, Moosaali F. Awareness and knowledge of patients toward dental implants as an option in replacing missing teeth: A survey in Kerman, Iran. Journal of Periodontology & Implant Dentistry. 2018 Oct 9;8(2):43–8.
26. 26. Suwal P, Basnet B, Shrestha B, Parajuli P, Singh R. Knowledge, attitude, and awareness regarding dental implants among patients visiting a university hospital and its teaching districts. J of Dental Implants. 2016;6(2):57. doi:10.4103/jdi.jdi_22_16
27. 27. Raju CM, Gunupati S, Babu MM, Reddy CS, Biradavolu S, Saravanan M. Patients' Awareness toward Implant-supported Prosthesis: An Observational Study. J Contemp Dent Pract. 2017;18(1):49-51. Published 2017 Jan 1. doi:10.5005/jp-journals-10024-1987
28. 28. Rashidi Maybodi F SM. Patients’ Knowledge and Attitude Regarding Dental Implants. JCHR. 2022;11(2):99–106.
29. 29. Rusticus SA, Lovato CY. Impact of Sample Size and Variability on the Power and Type I Error Rates of Equivalence Tests: A Simulation Study. Practical Assessment, Research, and Evaluation. 2014;19(11). doi:10.7275/4s9m-4e81
30. 30. Pommer B, Zechner W, Watzak G, Ulm C, Watzek G, Tepper G. Progress and trends in patients’ mindset on dental implants. I: level of information, sources of information and need for patient information. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2011;22(2):223-229. doi:10.1111/j.1600-0501.2010.02035.x