IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jijerp/v19y2022i1p557-d717718.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Patients’ Satisfaction and Oral Health-Related Quality of Life of Edentulous Patients Using Conventional Complete Dentures and Implant-Retained Overdentures in Saudi Arabia

Author

Listed:
  • Salwa Omar Bajunaid

    (Department of Prosthetic Sciences, College of Dentistry, King Saud University, Riyadh 11545, Saudi Arabia)

  • Abdullah S. Alshahrani

    (Department of Prosthetic Sciences, College of Dentistry, King Saud University, Riyadh 11545, Saudi Arabia)

  • Ahad A. Aldosari

    (Department of Prosthetic Sciences, College of Dentistry, King Saud University, Riyadh 11545, Saudi Arabia)

  • Atheer N. Almojel

    (Department of Prosthetic Sciences, College of Dentistry, King Saud University, Riyadh 11545, Saudi Arabia)

  • Rehab S. Alanazi

    (Department of Prosthetic Sciences, College of Dentistry, King Saud University, Riyadh 11545, Saudi Arabia)

  • Tala M. Alsulaim

    (Department of Prosthetic Sciences, College of Dentistry, King Saud University, Riyadh 11545, Saudi Arabia)

  • Syed Rashid Habib

    (Department of Prosthetic Sciences, College of Dentistry, King Saud University, Riyadh 11545, Saudi Arabia)

Abstract

The aim of this study was to compare patients’ satisfaction and quality of life (QoL) when using implant overdentures vs. conventional dentures. The QoL of Saudi patients who were provided mandibular implant-supported overdentures was assessed using a structured questionnaire. Overall satisfaction; ability to speak, eat, and chew food; comfort; esthetics; stability; and satisfaction of general oral health were measured. A total of 48.3% vs. 6.9% were, overall, very satisfied with their implant overdentures and conventional dentures, respectively. A total of 37.9% of the patients were very satisfied regarding speaking with their implant overdentures vs. 17.2% with conventional dentures. Furthermore, 41.4% were very comfortable with their implant overdentures vs. 5.2% were very comfortable using conventional dentures. However, only 15.5% were very satisfied with the esthetics of the conventional dentures compared to 43.1% being satisfied with implant overdentures. Only 1.7% were very satisfied with the stability of conventional dentures vs. 44.8% being satisfied using implant overdentures. About 8.6% of the candidates were very satisfied regarding chewing food with conventional dentures vs. 36.2% being very satisfied using implant overdentures. Approximately 10.3% were very satisfied with their general oral health using conventional dentures compared to 29.3% being very satisfied using implant overdentures. Mandibular implant overdentures had a strong impact on patients’ quality of life over conventional complete dentures and should be considered the minimum standard of care provided to completely edentulous patients.

Suggested Citation

  • Salwa Omar Bajunaid & Abdullah S. Alshahrani & Ahad A. Aldosari & Atheer N. Almojel & Rehab S. Alanazi & Tala M. Alsulaim & Syed Rashid Habib, 2022. "Patients’ Satisfaction and Oral Health-Related Quality of Life of Edentulous Patients Using Conventional Complete Dentures and Implant-Retained Overdentures in Saudi Arabia," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(1), pages 1-10, January.
  • Handle: RePEc:gam:jijerp:v:19:y:2022:i:1:p:557-:d:717718
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/19/1/557/pdf
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/19/1/557/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jijerp:v:19:y:2022:i:1:p:557-:d:717718. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.