Dental implant tedavisi sonrası hastalarda ağız sağlığı ile ilişkili yaşam kalitesinin retrospektif değerlendirilmesi

Abstract

Amaç: Çalışmanın amacı dental implant tedavisinden uzun süre sonra hastalarda ağız sağlığı ile ilişkili yaşam kalitesini değerlendirmektir. Yöntemler: Çalışma 2009-2013 yılları arasında Erciyes Üniversitesi Diş Hekimliği Fakültesi'nde dental implant cerrahisi geçiren ve protetik tedavisini tamamlayan hastalar üzerinde gerçekleştirilmiştir. Hastalara OHIP-14 ölçeği uygulanarak ağız sağlığı ile ilişkili yaşam kalitesi değerlendirilmiştir. Hastalardan elde edilen veriler yaş, cinsiyet, eğitim durumu ve protez tipi açısından karşılaştırılmıştır. Bulgular: Hastaların 10-14 yıllık takibi sonrasında dental implant sağkalım oranı %96,3 olarak bulunmuştur. Hastaların cinsiyet ve eğitim durumuna göre OHIP-14 skorları arasında istatistiksel olarak anlamlı bir fark bulunmamıştır (p>0,05). Yaşlı hastalara kıyasla fonksiyonel kısıtlılık ve fiziksel ağrı alt kategorileri açısından genç hastalar lehine istatistiksel olarak anlamlı farklılıklar bulunmuştur (p<0.05). İmplant destekli sabit protez kullanan hastaların, implant destekli hareketli protez kullanan hastalara kıyasla yaşam kalitesi açısından daha yüksek memnuniyet düzeyine sahip olduğu bulunmuştur (p<0.05). Toplam OHIP-14 skorundaki değişimin %15'inden hareketli protez tipinin sorumlu olduğu belirlenmiştir (p<0,05). Sonuç: Uzun dönem takibi yapılan hastalarda dental implantların sağ kalım oranı %96,3 olarak bulunmuştur. Yaşlı bireyler, dental implant tedavisinden sonra genç bireylere kıyasla fiziksel ağrı ve fonksiyonel kısıtlamalara daha yatkın olabilir. Ağız sağlığı ile ilgili yaşam kalitesinin, implant destekli sabit protez kullanan bireylerde hareketli protez kullananlara göre daha yüksek olduğu görülmüştür.

Keywords

• Dental implant
• OHİP-14
• ağız sağlığı
• yaşam kalitesi

Retrospective evaluation of oral health-related quality of life in patients after dental implant treatment

Abstract

Aims: The study aimed to evaluate oral health-related quality of life in patients long after dental implant treatment. Methods: The study was carried out on patients who underwent dental implant surgery and completed prosthetic treatment at Erciyes University Faculty of Dentistry between 2009 and 2013. Oral health-related quality of life was evaluated by applying the OHIP-14 scale to the patients. The data obtained from the patients was compared in terms of age, gender, educational status, and prosthesis type. Results: After 10–14 years of follow-up, the dental implant survival rate was 96.3%. There was no statistically significant difference between OHIP-14 scores according to gender and educational status (p>0.05). It was determined that individuals between the ages of 18 and 50 were statistically more advantageous than individuals between the ages of 51 and 73 in terms of functional limitation and physical pain subcategories (p<0.05). Patients using implant-supported fixed prostheses were found to have higher satisfaction levels in terms of quality of life compared to patients using implant-supported removable prostheses (p<0.05). The type of removable prosthesis was determined to be responsible for 15% of the change in the total OHIP-14 score (p<0.05). Conclusion: Among patients with a long-term follow-up, the survival rate of dental implants was 96.3%. Individuals aged 5173 years may be more prone to physical pain and functional limitations compared to individuals aged 18-50 years after dental implant therapy. The oral health-related quality of life was shown to be higher in individuals with implant-supported fixed prostheses than in those with removable prostheses.

Keywords

• Dental implant
• OHIP-14
• oral health
• quality of life

References

1. Anner R, Grossmann Y, Anner Y, Levin L. Smoking, diabetes mellitus, periodontitis, and supportive periodontal treatment as factors associated with dental implant survival: a long-term retrospective evaluation of patients followed for up to 10 years. Implant Dent. 2010;19(1):57-64. doi: 10.1097/ID.0b013e3181bb8f6c
2. Balshi TJ, Wolfinger GJ, Stein, BE. Balshi SF. A long-term retrospective analysis of survival rates of implants in the mandible. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2015;30(6):1348-354. doi:10.11607/jomi.3910
3. Do TA, Le HS, Shen YW, Huang HL, Fuh LJ. Risk factors related to late failure of dental implant—a systematic review of recent studies. Int J Environ Res and Public Health. 2020;17(11):3931. doi:10.3390/ijerph 17113931
4. Misch CE, Perel ML, Wang HL, et al. Implant success, survival, and failure: the International Congress of Oral Implantologists (ICOI) pisa consensus conference. Implant Dent. 2008;17(1):5-15. doi:10.1097/ID. 0b013e3181676059
5. Albrektsson T, Zarb G, Worthington P, Eriksson AR. The long-term efficacy of currently used dental implants: a review and proposed criteria of success. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 1986;1(1):11-25.
6. Kılınç Y, Erkmen E. Implant failure, risk factors and the role of the implant surface on implant failure. J Clin Sci. 2010;4(2):595-602.
7. Becker ST, Beck-Broichsitter BE, Rossmann CM, Behrens E, Jochens A, Wiltfang J. Long-term survival of Straumann dental implants with TPS surfaces: a retrospective study with a follow-up of 12 to 23 years. Clin Implant Dent Rel Res. 2016;18(3):480-488. doi:10.1111/cid.12334
8. Bramanti E, Matacena G, Cecchetti F, Arcuri C, Cicciu M. Oral health-related quality of life in partially edentulous patients before and after implant therapy: a 2-year longitudinal study Oral Implantol. 2013; 6(2):37.

9. Guckes AD, Scurria MS, Shugars DA. A conceptual framework for understanding outcomes of oral implant therapy. J Prosthet Dent. 1996; 75(6):633-639. doi:10.1016/s0022-3913(96)90249-8
10. Anderson JD. The need for criteria on reporting treatment outcomes. J Prosthet Dent. 1998;79(1):49-55. doi:10.1016/s0022-3913(98)70193-3
11. Buck D, Newton JT. Non-clinical outcome measures in dentistry: publishing trends 1988–98. Communit Dent Oral Epidemiol Comment. 2001;29(1):2-8. doi:10.1034/j.1600-0528.2001.00002.x
12. Babbush CA. Posttreatment quantification of patient experiences with full-arch implant treatment using a modification of the OHIP-14 questionnaire. J Oral Implantol. 2012;38(3):251-260. doi:10.1563/AAID-JOI-D-12-00001
13. Coltro MPL, 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. doi:10.1111/adj.12906
14. Slade GD, Spencer AJ. Development and evaluation of the oral health impact profile. Community Dent Health. 1994;11(1):3-11.
15. Vigu A, Stanciu D. When the fear of dentist is relevant for more than one’s oral health. A structural equation model of dental fear, self-esteem, oral-health-related well-being, and general well-being. Patient Prefer Adherence. 2019;13:1229-1240. doi:10.2147/PPA.S209068
16. Zhang L, Lyu C, Shang Z, Niu A, Liang X. Quality of life of implant-supported overdenture and conventional complete denture in restoring the edentulous mandible: a systematic review. Implant Dent. 2017;26(6): 945-950. doi:10.1097/ID.0000000000000668
17. Fejerskov O, Escobar G, Jøssing M, Baelum V. A functional natural dentition for all--and for life? The oral healthcare system needs revision. J Oral Rehabil. 2013;40(9):707-722. doi:10.1111/joor.12082
18. Pommer B. Use of the oral health impact profile (OHIP) in clinical oral implant research. J Dent Oral Craniofac Epidemiol. 2013;1(3):3-10.
19. 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. doi:10.5037/jomr.2013.4204
20. Geckili O, Bilhan H, Bilgin T. Impact of mandibular two-implant retained overdentures on life quality in a group of elderly Turkish edentulous patients. Arch Gerontol Geriatr. 2011;53(2):233-236. doi:10. 1016/j.archger.2010.11.027
21. Alzarea BK. Assessment and evaluation of quality of life (OHRQOL) of patients with dental implants using the oral health impact profile (OHIP-14)-a clinical study. J Clin Diag Res. 2016;10(4):ZC57. doi:10.7860/JCDR/ 2016/18575.7622
22. Değirmenci K, Sabak C. Evaluation of the effects of removable partial dentures on the quality for short term with OHIP-14 questionnaire: a pilot study. Fırat University Med J Health Sci. 2021;35(2):134-140.
23. Yoo SY, Kim HJ, Kim SK, Heo SJ, Koak JY, Park JM. Quality of life in patients in South Korea requiring special care after fixed implants: a retrospective analysis. BMC Oral Health. 2023;23(1):1002. doi:10.1186/s12903-023-03753-x
24. Basol ME, Karaagaçlioglu L, Yilmaz B. Developing a Turkish Oral Health Impact Profile-OHIP-14-TR. Turkiye Klinikleri J Dent Sci. 2014; 20(2):85. doi:10.11607/ijp.7587
25. Adler L, Buhlin K, Jansson L. Survival and complications: a 9-to 15-year retrospective follow-up of dental implant therapy. J Oral Rehabil. 2020; 47(1):67-77. doi:10.1111/joor.12866
26. Simonis P, Dufour T, Tenenbaum H. Long-term implant survival and success: a 10–16-year follow-up of non-submerged dental implants. Clin Oral Implant Res. 2010;21(7):772-777. doi:10.1111/j.1600-0501.2010. 01912.x
27. Howe MS, Keys W, Richards D. Long-term (10-year) dental implant survival: a systematic review and sensitivity meta-analysis. J Dent. 2019; 84:9-21. doi:10.1016/j.jdent.2019.03.008