Satisfaction and quality of life with palatal positioned implants  in severely atrophic maxillae versus conventional  implants supporting fixed full-arch prostheses

Eugenia Candel Martí; David Peñarrocha Oltra; María Peñarrocha Diago; Miguel Peñarrocha Diago

Ayuda

Satisfaction and quality of life with palatal positioned implants in severely atrophic maxillae versus conventional implants supporting fixed full-arch prostheses

Eugenia Candel-Marti ^[1] ; David Peñarrocha-Oltra ^[1] ; Maria Peñarrocha-Diago ^[1] ; Miguel Peñarrocha-Diago ^[1]
1. [1] Universitat de València
  
  Universitat de València
  
  Valencia, España
Localización: Medicina oral, patología oral y cirugía bucal. Ed. inglesa, ISSN-e 1698-6946, Vol. 20, Nº. 6 (Noviembre), 2015
Idioma: inglés
Enlaces
- Texto completo (pdf)
Resumen
- Background: To 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 Methods: A 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.
  
  Results: Mean 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.
  
  Conclusions: Despite 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