Int J Oral Implantol (Berl) 7 (2014), Supplement 2 24. June 2014
Int J Oral Implantol (Berl) 7 (2014), Supplement 2 (24.06.2014)
Supplement, Page 91-109, PubMed:24977244
Patients' preferences towards minimally invasive treatment alternatives for implant rehabilitation of edentulous jaws
Pommer, Bernhard / Mailath-Pokorny, Georg / Haas, Robert / Busenlechner, Dieter / Fürhauser, Rudolf / Watzek, Georg
Purpose: To evaluate patient satisfaction, oral health-related quality of life, and patients' preferences towards minimally invasive treatment options for graftless rehabilitation of complete edentulism by means of dental implants.
Material and methods: A MEDLINE search of literature in the English language up to the year 2013 was performed to summarise current evidence from the patient's perspective. The final selection included 37 studies reporting on minimally invasive implant treatment of 648 edentulous maxillae and 791 edentulous mandibles in 1328 patients, via a total of 5766 implants.
Results: Patient satisfaction averaged 91% with flapless implant placement (range: 77 to 100%), 89% with short implants, 87% with narrow-diameter implants (range: 80 to 93%), 90% with a reduced number of implants (range: 77 to 100%), 94% with tilted implant placement (range: 58 to 100%), and 83% with zygomatic fixtures (range: 50 to 97%). Indirect comparison yielded patient preference towards tilted implant placement compared to a reduced number of implants (P = 0.036), as well as to zygomatic implants (P = 0.001).
Conclusions: While little evidence on patients' preferences towards minimally invasive treatment alternatives vs. bone augmentation surgery could be identified from within-study comparison, it may be concluded that patient satisfaction with graftless solutions for implant rehabilitation of completely edentulous jaws is generally high. Comparative effectiveness research is needed to substantiate their positive appeal to potential implant patients and possible reduction of the indication span for invasive bone graft surgery.
Conflict-of-interest notification: The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.
Keywords: dental implants, implant-supported dental prosthesis, quality of life, patient preference, patient satisfaction