Evaluation of Patient Satisfaction in Implant Supported Fixed Prosthesis

Yıl 2020, Cilt: 11 Sayı: 4, 383 - 388, 31.12.2020

Zeynep Başağaoğlu Demirekin , Merve Erken , Serhat Süha Türkaslan , Erdal Eroğlu

Öz

Aim: Many study have been carried out on the success of implant-supported fixed prostheses, clinical and radiographicly. However, very few of these studies evaluated patient satisfaction. Our aim is to evaluate the satisfaction of patients who fixed prosthetic treatment with implant support fixed prostheses constructed between 2015-2018. Matherial and Method: 56 patients who were successfully treated with implant-supported fixed prostheses, clinically and radiographically, were included in the study. Patients were directed to a questionnaire consisting of 12 questions. Results: The patients who were included in the evaluation reported that they were very satisfied with the function of the implant supported prostheses and that they could chew very easily. The number of the participants reported that there was no difference between fixed prostheses and their own teeth and their function in the past in terms of chewing and speech function. When the fixed prosthesis is evaluated aesthetically, 65% of the individuals were very satisfied, while 20% reported that they were satisfied enough with the aesthetic result. 72 percent of patients reported that they were able to clean their prosthetics easily. Conclusions: The number of the patients involved in the study are satisfied with the fixed prosthesis treatment on the implant in terms of function, fonation and aesthetic aspects. However, the cost of treatment could not be satisfied in terms of a similar.

Anahtar Kelimeler

Implant supported fixed prosthesis, dental implant, patient satisfaction

İmplant Destekli Sabit Bölümlü Protezlerde Hasta Memnuniyetinin Değerlendirilmesi

Öz

Amaç: İmplant destekli sabit bölümlü protezler ile rehabilite edilen hastalarda implantların klinik ve radyografik başarısı ile ilgili birçok çalışma mevcut olmasına rağmen, hasta memnuniyeti ile ilgili az sayıda çalışma mevcuttur. Çalışmamızın amacı 2015-2018 yılları arasında implant destekli sabit bölümlü protezler ile rehabilite edilen hastaların protezleri ile ilgili memnuniyet derecelerini belirlemektir. Gereç ve Yöntem: İmplant destekli sabit bölümlü köprüler ile rehabilite edilen ve 56 adet hasta, implant ve restorasyonların uygulanma ve takip süresince klinik ve radyolojik olarak başarılı kabul edilme koşulu ile çalışmaya dahil edildi. Hastalara 12 sorudan oluşan bir anket formu yöneltildi. Bulgular: Değerlendirmeye dahil edilen hastalar, implant destekli sabit bölümlü protezleri ile rahatlıkla çiğneme yapabildiklerini ve fonksiyonel açıdan son derece memnun olduklarını ifade etti. Çalışmaya katılan bireylerin büyük çoğunluğu çiğneme ve konuşma fonksiyonu açısından, protezler ile geçmişte kendi dişleri ile gösterdikleri fonksiyon arasında bir fark bulunmadığını bildirdi. Protezler estetik açıdan incelendiğinde, bireylerin %65’i çok memnun iken, %20’si estetik sonuçtan yeterince tatmin olduklarını bildirdiler. Hastaların yüzde 72'si protezlerini kolaylıkla temizleyebildiğini bildirdi. Sonuç: Çalışmaya katılan hastaların büyük çoğunluğu estetik, fonksiyon ve fonasyon açısından implant destekli sabit bölümlü protez tedavisinden memnun olduklarını ifade ederken tedavi maliyetleri konusunda benzer oranda memnuniyet elde edilmedi.

Anahtar Kelimeler

İmplant üstü sabit protezler, memnuniyet anketi, dental implant

Kaynakça

• 1. Albrektsson T, editor Consensus report of session IV. Proceeding of the 1st European Workshop on Periodontology; 1985: Quintessence Publishing Co.
• 2. Albrektsson T, Zarb G, Worthington P, Eriksson A. 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.
• 3. Gbadebo OS, Lawal FB, Sulaiman AO, Ajayi DM. Dental implant as an option for tooth replacement: The awareness of patients at a tertiary hospital in a developing country. Contemporary clinical dentistry. 2014;5(3):302.
• 4. Kaurani P, Kaurani M. Awareness of dental implants as a treatment modality amongst people residing in Jaipur (Rajasthan). J Clin Diagn Res. 2010;4(6):3622-6.
• 5. Lekholm U, Gröndahl K, Jemt T. Outcome of oral implant treatment in partially edentulous jaws followed 20 years in clinical function. Clinical implant dentistry and related research. 2006;8(4):178-86.
• 6. Pjetursson BE, Thoma D, Jung R, Zwahlen M, Zembic A. A systematic review of the survival and complication rates of implant‐supported fixed dental prostheses (FDPs) after a mean observation period of at least 5 years. Clinical oral implants research. 2012; 23:22-38.
• 7. Carr-Hill RA. The measurement of patient satisfaction. Journal of public health. 1992;14(3):236-49.
• 8. Grogono, A., Lancaster Ancaster, P.D. & Finger, I. Dental implants: a survey of patients' attitudes. Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry, 1989; 62, 573.
• 9. Haraldson Araldson, T., Jemt, T., Stalblad Ê Lblad, P.A. & Lekholm, U. Oral function in subjects with overdentures supported by osseointegrated implants. Scandinavian Journal of Dental Research, 1988; 96: 235-242.
• 10. Blomberg Lomberg, S. & Lindquist Indquist, L.W. (1983) Psychological reactions to edentulousness and treatment with jawbone-anchored bridges. Acta Psychiatrica Scandinavia, 68, 251.
• 11. Lindquist Indquist, L.W. (1987) On prosthetic rehabilitation of the edentulous mandible. A longitudinal study of treatment with tissue-integrated ®xed prostheses. Thesis. Swedish Dental Journal, 48 (Suppl.)
• 12. Kıyak, A., Beach, B., Worthington Orthington, P., Taylor, T., Bolender Olender, C. & Evans, J. (1990) The psychological impact of osseointegrated dental implants. International Journal of Oral and Maxillofacial Implants, 5, 61
• 13. Pjetursson BE, Karoussis I, Bürgin W, Brägger U, Lang NP. Patients' satisfaction following implant therapy: a 10‐year prospective cohort study. Clinical oral implants research. 2005;16(2):185-93.
• 14. Forbes ML, Brown HN. Developing an instrument for measuring patient satisfaction. AORN journal. 1995;61(4):737-43.
• 15. De Bruyn H, Collaert B, Lindén U, Björn A. Patient's opinion and treatment outcome of fixed rehabilitation on Brinemark implants. A 3‐year follow‐up study in private dental practices. Clinical Oral Implants Research. 1997;8(4):265-71.
• 16. Yi SW, Carlsson G, Ericsson I, Kim CK. Patient evaluation of treatment with fixed implant‐supported partial dentures. Journal of oral rehabilitation. 2001;28(11):998-1002.
• 17. Vermylen K, Collaert B, Lindén U, Björn AL, De Bruyn H. Patient satisfaction and quality of single‐tooth restorations: A 7‐year follow‐up pilot study in private dental practices. Clinical oral implants research. 2003;14(1):119-24.
• 18. Hämmerle C, Wagner D, Brägger U, Lussi A, Karayiannis A, Joss A, et al. Threshold of tactile sensitivity perceived with dental endosseous implants and natural teeth. Clinical oral implants research. 1995;6(2):83-90.
• 19. Zitzmann NU, Marinello CP. Treatment outcomes of fixed or removable implant-supported prostheses in the edentulous maxilla. Part I: patients’ assessments. The Journal of prosthetic dentistry. 2000;83(4):424-33.