Page 123 - Impact of implant retained overdenture treatment and speech, oromyofunction, social participation and quality of life.

Personality, social participation and OHRQoL in dental implant treatment
Contemporary research on the impact of dental implants on quality of life and social participation paid only marginal attention to the role of personality in the experiencing of quality of life and social relationships and adaptation after surgery.
The aims of the current study are to assess the impact of implant-prosthodontic treatments on quality of life and social participation taking into account a patient’s personality and relying on self- and observer ratings of post treatment outcomes.
Materials and methods
Participants and design
Patients in need of implant-related prosthetic treatment consulting the Department of Periodontology and Oral Implantology of University Hospital of Ghent were asked to participate in the investigation. They all completed personality, quality of life and social participation questionnaires one month before treatment and one to two months after implant treatment. Patients were requested to select an observer who knew them well to provide patient descriptions using the same set of inventories. All subjects (patients and observers) gave their informed consent for inclusion before they participated in the study. The study was conducted in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki, and the protocol was approved by the Ethics Committee of University Hospital of Ghent on clinical research involving human beings (EC/2015/1056). In total 75 out of 54 patients accepted to participate and gave informed consent. The issue of non-response was related to logistic issues, less engagement to participate or the lack of a social network to fill in the external observer form. Fifteen patients received single-unit prostheses, 30 were treated with a two-implant-retained overdenture, 5 received a removable conventional full dentures and the final 4 a fixed implant- supported bridge. Because the latter 5 and 4 cases represent a minor group, too small for further statistically relevant distinction, the removable and fixed complete dentitions were regrouped to one.
Patients were assigned to two groups: Group 1 (N= 15) included those receiving single-unit prostheses, Group 2 (N= 39) enclosed those with complete jaw restorations (with or without implants).
5
121