ORIGINAL ARTICLE   

Minerva Stomatologica 2018 October;67(5):189-95

DOI: 10.23736/S0026-4970.18.04134-1

Copyright © 2018 EDIZIONI MINERVA MEDICA

language: English

Oral health-related quality of life and clinical outcomes of immediately or delayed loaded implants in the rehabilitation of edentulous jaws: a retrospective comparative study

Saverio COSOLA ^{1, 2, 3} ✉, Simone MARCONCINI ^{1, 2}, Enrica GIAMMARINARO ^{1, 2, 3}, Gian Luca POLI ⁴, Ugo COVANI ^{1, 2}, Antonio BARONE ^{2, 5}

¹ Department of Surgical, Medical, Molecular and Critical Area Pathology, University Hospital of Pisa, Pisa, Italy; ² Tuscan Stomatologic Institute, Foundation for Dental Clinic, Research and Continuing Education, Versilia General Hospital, Lido di Camaiore, Lucca, Italy; ³ Department of Stomatology, Faculty of Medicine and Dentistry, University of Valencia, Valencia, Spain; ⁴ Private Practitioner, Pisa, Italy; ⁵ Unit of Oral Surgery and Implantology, University of Geneva, Geneva, Switzerland

BACKGROUND: Patient-centered outcomes are being given great attention by the dental scientific community. The Oral Health Impact Profile -14 questionnaire (OHIP-14) has been introduced to address patients’ success criteria when describing the impact of oral rehabilitations on quality of life (OHrQoL).
METHODS: Thirty-five patients wearing a full-arch implant-prosthesis being in place between 4 and 6 years before this analysis were considered eligible and then enrolled in the present retrospective study. According to their prosthetic anamnesis, two groups were defined: delayed loading group (IL-group) and immediate loading group (IL-group). At the moment of analysis, clinical and radiographic parameters were collected, and patients were asked to complete the Oral Health Impact Profile -14 questionnaire (OHIP-14) in order to measure their OHrQoL.
RESULTS: Independent t-test showed total OHIP-14 scores to be not significantly different between groups; however, the domains “functional limitation” and “physical disability” resulted significantly higher in patients within the DL-group. On the contrary, social disability was higher in the IL-group. When the comparison was performed taking sex into account, no significant differences between groups were highlighted. Instead, the stratification for years of follow-up led to significant evidences. When the follow-up was shorter (less-than-5 years), the functional limitation reported scores were higher.
CONCLUSIONS: Within the limitations of this study, the analysis supports the absence of significant differences between immediate loading and delayed loading full-arch protocol in term of clinical, radiological parameters and OHrQoL.

KEY WORDS: Dental implants - Quality of life - Dental prosthesis, implant-supported