Satisfaction and quality of life with palatal positioned implants in severely atrophic maxillae versus conventional implants supporting fixed full-arch prostheses
Candel-Marti E, Peñarrocha-Oltra D, Peñarrocha-Diago MA, Peñarrocha-Diago M. Satisfaction and quality of life with palatal positioned implants in severely atrophic maxillae versus conventional implants supporting fixed full-arch prostheses. Med Oral Patol Oral Cir Bucal. 2015 Nov 1;20 (6):e751-6.
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 supportingfixed full-arch prostheses.
MATERIAL AND METHOD:
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.
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 items except for ‘problems at work’. However, differences were not statistically significant in any case.
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.