Browse > Article
http://dx.doi.org/10.4047/jkap.2008.46.6.569

THE PATIENTS' SATISFACTION FOLLOWING IMPLANT TREATMENT  

Heo, Yoon-Young (Department of Chemistry, Wellesley College)
Heo, Seong-Joo (Department of Prosthodontics, School of Dentistry, Seoul National University)
Chang, Myung-Woo (Department of Prosthodontics, School of Dentistry, Harvard University)
Park, Ji-Man (Department of Prosthodontics, School of Dentistry, Seoul National University)
Publication Information
The Journal of Korean Academy of Prosthodontics / v.46, no.6, 2008 , pp. 569-576 More about this Journal
Abstract
STATEMENT OF PROBLEM: While patient-centered outcomes are usually not reported, these may represent major aspects of the implant success for the patient. Use of a well-designed patient survey form can be an invaluable asset to the implant practitioners. PURPOSE: The objective of this study was to investigate patient satisfaction after implant therapy by means of a questionnaire. MATERIAL AND METHODS: South Korean patients (n = 100), who visited the dental examination center of Soon Chun Hyang university hospital, were asked to fill out the satisfaction questionnaire regarding aspects of cost, comfort, esthetics, chewing, gingival health, food impaction, phonetic aspect, screw loosening, and general satisfaction. Responses to statements were given on the Likert response scale. Four experimental groups of patients were distinguished with various location ($A_1,\;A_2,\;A_3$), year ($B_1,\;B_2,\;B_3$), number of implant replacements ($C_1,\;C_2,\;C_3$), and treatment cost ($D_1,\;D_2,\;D_3$). The reliability of the response scales was measured by calculation of its internal consistency, expressed as Cronbach's ${\alpha}$. The scales were distinguished by means of factor analysis method. Possible differences in scale scores among the groups were assessed by One-way ANOVA (${\alpha}$= 0.05). RESULTS: Patients responded to most of the statements with high satisfaction. But the mean scale score of statement about cost was low. After the verification of internal consistency and factor analysis, five components, e.g. general satisfaction, comfort, chewing efficiency, esthetics, and phonetic aspect were grouped together. These components could be explained with common meaning and the first factor was named as 'general satisfaction'. Differences in patient satisfaction on the scale with esthetics were present between patients who have been wearing the implant prosthesis less than three years and those more than seven years ($B_1<B_3$). CONCLUSION: The patients were generally satisfied with the outcome of implant treatment. But the patients' major complaint was high cost and while the statistically significant difference was not shown, the satisfaction scale about food impaction and esthetics was low. So the continuing efforts to make improvements about these problems are needed for the implant practitioners.
Keywords
Dental implant; Patient satisfaction; Questionnaire; Likert scale; Internal consistency; Factor analysis;
Citations & Related Records
연도 인용수 순위
  • Reference
1 Lekholm U, van Steenberghe D, Herrmann I, Bolender C, Folmer T, Gunne J. Osseointegrated implants in the treatment of partially edentulous jaws: A prospective 5-year mulitcenter study. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 1994;9:627-35
2 Pjetursson BE, Karoussis I, Burgin W, Bragger U, Lang NP. Patients'satisfaction following implant therapy. A 10- year prospective cohort study. Clin Oral Implants Res 2005;16:185-93   DOI   ScienceOn
3 Liddelow GJ, Henry PJ. A prospective study of immediately loaded single implant-retained mandibular overdentures: preliminary one-year results. J Prosthet Dent 2007;97:126-37   DOI   ScienceOn
4 Likert R. Public opinion polls. Sci Am 1948;179:7-11   PUBMED
5 Wolfle D, Likert R, et al. Standards for appraising psychological research. Am Psychol 1949;4:320-8   DOI
6 Cronbach LJ. Coefficient alpha and the internal structure of tests. Psychometrika 1951;16:297-334   DOI
7 Guilford JP, Frutcher B. Fundamental statistics in psychology and education. 5th ed. New York;McGraw Hill; 1973. pp. 121-34
8 epper G, Haas R, Mailath G, Teller C, Bernhart T, Monov G, Watzek G. Representative marketing-oriented study on implants in the Austrian population. II. Implant acceptance, patient-perceived cost and patient satisfaction. Clin Oral Implants Res 2003;14:634-42   DOI   ScienceOn
9 Nunnally JC. Psychometric theory. 2nd ed. New York;McGraw Hill; 1978. pp. 278-92
10 Anderson JD. The need for criteria on reporting treatment outcomes. J Prosthet Dent 1998;79:49-55   DOI   ScienceOn
11 Likert R. A technique for the measurement of attitudes. Archives of Psychology 1932;140:1-55
12 Henry PJ, Laney WR, Jemt T, Harris D, Krogh PH, Polizzi G, Zarb GA, Herrmann I. Osseointegrated implants for single- tooth replacement: a prospective 5-year multicenter study. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 1996;11:450-5
13 Haisch MA. Outcomes assessment survey to determine patient satisfaction. J Contemp Dent Pract 2000;1:89-99
14 Guckes AD, Scurria MS, Shugars DA. A conceptual framework for understanding outcomes of oral implant therapy. J Prosthet Dent 1996;75:633-9   DOI   ScienceOn
15 Assuncao WG, Zardo GG, Delben JA, Barao VA. Comparing the efficacy of mandibular implant-retained overdentures and conventional dentures among elderly edentulous patients: satisfaction and quality of life. Gerodontology 2007;24:235-8   DOI   ScienceOn
16 Siadat H, Alikhasi M, Mirfazaelian A, Geramipanah F, Zaery F. Patient satisfaction with implant-retained mandibular overdentures: a retrospective study. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res 2008;10:93-8   DOI   ScienceOn
17 Nery EB, Meister F Jr, et al. Ellinger RF, Eslami A, McNamara TJ. Prevalence of medical problems in periodontal patients obtained from three different populations. J Periodontol 1987;58:564-8   DOI   PUBMED
18 Clancy JM, Buchs AU, Ardjmand H. A retrospective analysis of one implant system in an oral surgery practice. Phase I: Patient satisfaction. J Prosthet Dent 1991;65:265-71   DOI   ScienceOn
19 Schropp L, Isidor F, Kostopoulos L, Wenzel A. Patient experience of, and satisfaction with, delayed-immediate vs. delayed single-tooth implant placement. Clin Oral Implants Res 2004;15:498-503   DOI   ScienceOn
20 Zitzmann NU, Marinello CP. Treatment outcomes of fixed or removable implant-supported prostheses in the edentulous maxilla. Part I: patients' assessments. J Prosthet Dent 2000;83:424-33   DOI   ScienceOn
21 Lewis DW. Optimized therapy for the edentulous predicament: cost-effectiveness considerations. J Prosthet Dent 1998;79:93-9   DOI   ScienceOn
22 Jermt T, Pettersson P. A 3-year follow-up study on single implant treatment. J Dent 1993;21:203-8   DOI   ScienceOn
23 Locker D. Patient-based assessment of the outcomes of implant therapy: a review of the literature. Int J Prosthodont 1998;11:453-61   PUBMED
24 Buser D, Mericske-Stern R, Bernard JP, Behneke A, Behneke N, Hirt HP, Belser VC, Lang NP. Long-term evaluation of non-submerged ITI implants. Part 1: 8-year life table analysis of a prospective multi-center study with 2359 implants. Clin Oral Implants Res 1997;8:161-72   DOI   ScienceOn
25 Allen PF, McMillan AS, Walshaw D. Patient expectations of oral implant-retained prostheses in a UK dental hospital. Br Dent J 1999;186:80-4   DOI
26 Sonis ST, Fazio R, Setkowicz A, Gottlieb D, Vorhaus C. Comparison of the nature and frequency of medical problems among patients in general, specialty and hospital dental practices. J Oral Med 1983;38:58-61   PUBMED
27 Lekholm U, Gunne J, Henry P, Higuchi K, Linde n U, Bergstrom C, van Steenberghe D. Survival of the Branemark implant in partially edentulous jaws: a 10-year prospective multicenter study. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 1999;14:639-45
28 Adell R, Lekholm U, Rockler B, Branemark PI. A 15-year study of osseointegrated implants in the treatment of the edentulous jaw. Int J Oral Surg 1981;10:387-416
29 Chang M, Wennstrom JL, Odman P, Andersson B. Implant supported single-tooth replacements compared to contralateral natural teeth. Crown and soft tissue dimensions. Clin Oral Implants Res 1999;10:185-94   DOI   ScienceOn
30 de Grandmont P, Feine JS, Tache R, Boudrias P, Donohue WB, Tanguay R, Lund JP. Within-subject comparisons of implant-supported mandibular prostheses: psychometric evaluation. J Dent Res 1994;73:1096-104   DOI   PUBMED