Comparison of chewing ability and quality of life before and after the dental implantation

Kyeong-Won Kim; Kyeong-Soo Lee; Pock-Soo Kang; Woo-Shik Kim; Hee-Kyeong Lee

doi:10.4047/jkap.2009.47.2.215

Journal List > J Korean Acad Prosthodont > v.47(2) > 1034580

Go to TopGo to Top Go to BottomGo to Bottom

TOOLS

Kim, Lee, Kang, Kim, and Lee: Comparison of chewing ability and quality of life before and after the dental implantation

ORIGINAL ARTICLE

J Korean Acad Prosthodont 2009;47(2):215-221.

Published online: 18 December 2009

DOI: https://doi.org/10.4047/jkap.2009.47.2.215

Comparison of chewing ability and quality of life before and after the dental implantation

Kyeong-Won Kim, MS¹, Kyeong-Soo Lee, MD, PhD^2,^∗, Pock-Soo Kang, MD, PhD³, Woo-Shik Kim, DDS, MSD⁴, Hee-Kyeong Lee, DDS, PhD⁵

^¹Graduate Student, Department of Health, Graduate School, Department of Preventive Medicine and Public Health

^²Associate Professor, Department of Health, Graduate School, Department of Preventive Medicine and Public Health

^³Professor, Department of Health, Graduate School, Department of Preventive Medicine and Public Health

^⁴Clinical Professor, Department of Dentistry, College of Medicine, Yeungnam University

^⁵Professor, Department of Dentistry, College of Medicine, Yeungnam University

Corresponding Author: Kyeong-Soo Lee Department of Preventive Medicine and Public Health, College of Medicine, Yeungnam University 317-1 Daemyeong-dong, Nam-gu, Deagu, 707-717, Korea 82 53 620 4375: e-mail, drkslee@ynu.ac.kr

Received 25 March 20091 April 2009 Accepted 13 April 2009

This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0/) which permits unrestricted non-commercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Abstract

Statement of problem

Recently the populations of patients receiving implant surgery are greatly increase for maintaining oral health.

Purpose

This study was conducted for implanted patients to assess the chewing ability patient satisfaction level and changes in quality of life before and after the implant surgery.

Material and methods

The current study subjected 109 adult patients, older than 20 years of age, who received implant surgery from December, 2006 to October, 2007 at the 6 dental clinics located at Daegu and Ulsan metropolitan cities. Twice of surveys were conducted for the patients before and after receiving the dental implant surgery.

Results

As the motivation of receiving implant surgery, 45.9% of the patients selected the surgery for the chance of “chewing function recovery”, and “failure of treatment and complications” was found to be the most worrisome at the time of surgery by recording 38.5%. The satisfaction level before the implant surgery scored 30.37, while the score was increased to 45.01 after the surgery by showing a significant difference before and after receiving the surgery (P < .001). Regard on the surgery, 91.8% of the patients responded as “Satisfy”, and 89% of the study subjects responded that they have willingness to recommend the surgery to their families and friends. The chewing ability score measured by using the surveys on edible foods, the score before the surgery was 15.24, while the score was increased to 19.11 after the surgery by showing a significant difference before and after receiving the surgery (P < .001). The quality of life score was also found to be increased to 11.17 after the surgery from 9.99 before the surgery by showing a significant difference (P < .001).

Conclusion

In a future, the studies on the numbers of implanted loss teeth and the location of tooth loss are necessary, more long-term follow study are needed, and it is thought to be necessary to enlarge the sample size of subjects in conducting the studies.

Keywords: dental implantaion, quality of life, chewing ability, patient satisfaction

REFERENCES

1.Pack IS. A Study of the health promoting lifestyle. Department of Nursing, The Graduate School of Pusan National University. 1995.

2.Lee HN., Kim EM. Oral heal related quality of life of women college students. J Korean Acad Dental Hygiene Education. 2005. 5:89–99.

3.Boretti G., Bickel M., Geering AH. A review of masticatory ability and efficiency. J Prosthet Dent. 1995. 74:400–3.

4.Kang JW. The survey of oral health and the nutritional status of the elderly in Seoul. Department of Food and Nutrition. The Graduate School, Hanyang University, Seoul, Korea. 2003. 2.

5.Gilbert GH., Foerster U., Duncan RP. Satisfaction with chewing ability in a diverse sample of dentate adults. J Oral Rehabil. 1998. 25:15–27.

6.Horwath CC. Chewing difficulty and dietary intake in the elderly. J Nutr Elder. 1989. 9:17–24.

7.Dormenval V., Mojon P., Budtz-J � rgensen E. Associations between self-assessed masticatory ability, nutritional status, prosthetic status and salivary flow rate in hospitalized elders. Oral Dis. 1999. 5:32–8.

8.Choe JS., Jeong SH. The development of strategies for the promotion of oral health research. Korea Institute for Health and Social. 2000. 55–77.

9.Cushing AM., Sheiham A., Maizels J. Developing socio-dental indicators—the social impact of dental disease. Community Dent Health. 1986. 3:3–17.

10.Willits FK., Crider DM. Health rating and life satisfaction in the later middle years. J Gerontol. 1988. 43:S172–6.

11.Atchison KA., Dolan TA. Development of the Geriatric Oral Health Assessment Index. J Dent Educ. 1990. 54:680–7.

12.McGrath C., Bedi R. An evaluation of a new measure of oral health related quality of life—OHQoL-UK(W). Community Dent Health. 2001. 18:138–43.

13.Cleary PD., McNeil BJ. Patient satisfaction as an indicator of quality care. Inquiry. 1988. 25:25–36.

14.Waerhaug J., Philos D. Periodontology and partial prosthesis. Int Dent J. 1968. 18:101–7.

15.Carr AB., Laney WR. Maximum occlusal force levels in patients with osseointegrated oral implant prostheses and patients with complete dentures. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 1987. 2:101–8.

16.Wetherell JD., Smales RJ. Partial denture failures: a longterm clinical survey. J Dent. 1980. 8:333–40.

17.Chung HG. Tissue Responses Around Two Types of Dental Impalnt in Beagle Dog. Department of Periodontology, College of Dentistry, Kyung Hee University. 2000. 2.

18.Carl E Misch. Contemporary implant dentistry. 2nd.Daehannarae publishing, seoul;2000. Chapter 1.

19.Baek JW. Dental Implant. Korean society for Engineering Education. 2002. 1:87–90.

20.Osstem implant. Quarterly Reports. 2006;NOV. 14.

21.Yu EM. A Study on Implant Patients' Satisfaction and Mastication Ability - Compared to Denture Patients. Department of Health Management, Graduate School of Health and Environment, Yonsei University Korea. 2005.

22.Lee HJ. A Study on the Satisfaction with the Dental Services of the Implant Treatment Patients Visiting the Dental Hospital. Department of Hygienic Science The Graduate School, Gatholic University of Daegu;2005.

23.North Texas Periodontal Associates. cited 2007 Nov.1; Available from; URL. http://www.ntxpa.com.

24.Hirai T., Ishijima T., Koshino H., Anzai T. Age-related change of masticatory function in complete denture wearers: evaluation by a sieving method with peanuts and a food intake questionnaire method. Int J Prosthodont. 1994. 7:454–60.

25.Lawton MP. The Philadelphia Geriatric Center Morale Scale: a revision. J Gerontol. 1975. 30:85–9.

26.Levi A., Psoter WJ., Agar JR., Reisine ST., Taylor TD. Patient self-reported satisfaction with maxillary anterior dental implant treatment. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2003. 18:113–20.

27.Boerrigter EM., Stegenga B., Raghoebar GM., Boering G. Patient satisfaction and chewing ability with implant-retained mandibular overdentures: a comparison with new complete dentures with or without preprosthetic surgery. J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 1995. 53:1167–73.

28.Cibirka RM., Razzoog M., Lang BR. Critical evaluation of patient responses to dental implant therapy. J Prosthet Dent. 1997. 78:574–81.

29.Awad MA., Locker D., Korner-Bitensky N., Feine JS. Measuring the effect of intra-oral implant rehabilitation on health-related quality of life in a randomized controlled clinical trial. J Dent Res. 2000. 79:1659–63.

30.Sonoyama W., Kuboki T., Okamoto S., Suzuki H., Arakawa H., Kanyama M., Yatani H., Yamashita A. Quality of life assessment in patients with implant-supported and resin-bonded fixed prosthesis for bounded edentulous spaces. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2002. 13:359–64.

31.Shin CH. A Study upon Analyzing Patient' Satisfactions by the Areas of his/her Dental Losses Followed by Dental Implanting. Graduate School of Public Health Yonsei University;2004.

32.Chung JY. Factirs Impacting on the Satisfaction of Implant Patients in Daegu and Kyungpook Areas. Department of Public Health Graduate School of Environment & Public Health Yeungnam University;2005.

33.Kim JS., Kim SG., Kim BO., Kim DG., Choe DG., Choe HY., Kim JU., Lee JY., Lee HB., Park JY. Assessment of satisfaction of dental implant surgery. J Korean Acad Implant Dent. 2006. 25:41–60.

34.Lee YK. Effect of Denture Placement on Nutrient Status and Quality of Life in the Urban Elderly. Department of Medical Science, Graduate School, Yeungnam University;2002.

Fig. 1.

Frame of research process for survey of the subjects.

Table I.

Demographic characteristics of study subjects

	Characteristics	No.	%
Sex	Male	68	62.4
Sex	Female	41	37.6
Age(years)	20 - 29	9	8.3
	30 - 39	19	17.4
	40 - 49	37	33.9
	50 - 59	37	33.9
	60 +	7	6.5
Region of residence	Metropolitan	89	81.7
Region of residence	Medium sized city and county	20	18.3
Educational level	Less than Middle school	6	5.5
	High school	59	54.1
	More than College graduates	44	40.4
Marital status	Married	89	81.7
	Unmarried	17	15.6
	Divorce or Bereavement	1	0.9
	No response	2	1.8
Income	200 >	12	11.0
(10,000won)	200 - 299	26	23.9
	300 - 399	37	33.9
	400 - 499	11	10.1
	500 +	13	11.9
	No response	10	9.2
Occupational status	Professionals, white collar	27	24.8
	Self-employed	27	24.8
	Housewife	26	23.9
	Blue collar	24	22.0
	Student	3	2.8
	Others	2	1.8
Religions affiliation	Buddhism	46	42.2
	Christian	17	15.6
	Catholic	6	5.5
	No religion or others	40	36.7
Total		109	100.0

Table II.

Distribution of a dental checkup and experience of gingival bleeding symptom before implantation

	symptom	No.	%
Dental checkup	yes	31	28.4
Dental checkup	no	78	71.6
Experience of gingival bleeding symptom	yes	68	62.4
Experience of gingival bleeding symptom	no	41	37.6
Total		109	10.0

Table III.

Distribution of reasons for dental implant utilization

	Contents in response	No.	%
Reasons of receive the dental implant	Chewing ability improvement	50	45.9
	Life span	29	26.6
	Recommendation of dentistry	20	18.3
	Aesthetics	6	5.5
	Others	4	3.7
The most important concern	Failure or side effect of dental implant	42	38.6
	Cost for dental implant	31	28.4
	Pain	26	23.9
	Discomfort for take a meal	8	7.3
	Others	2	1.8
Payer of treatment expenses	Him or herself	70	64.3
	Spouse	30	27.5
	Parents	4	3.7
	Children	2	1.8
	Others	3	2.7
Total		109	100.0

Table IV.

Comparison of satisfaction score before and after dental implantation

No.of question		Before		After		t	P-value
No.of question		Mean	SD	Mean	SD	t	P-value
Chewing function	4	10.21	3.71	15.13	1.87	-12.548	0.001
Social function	4	9.72	2.18	14.77	1.79	-16.139	0.001
Psychological function	4	10.44	2.88	15.11	2.18	-15.167	0.001
Total (perfect score: 48)	12	30.3	8.03	45.03	4.87	-16.82	0.001

SD: Standard deviation.

Table V.

Overall satisfaction with dental implantation, intention of recommendation and re-visit Unit: No.(%)

	Poor	So-So	Excellent
Overall satisfaction with dental implant	-	9 (8.2)	100 (91.8)
Intention of recommendation to his or her family or neighbor	-	12 (11.0)	97 (89.0)
Intention of re-visit	2 (1.8)	10 (9.2)	97 (89.0)

Table VI.

Comparison of the chewing ability score before and after dental implantation using staple foods

	Item	Before	After	t-value	P-value
more harder	Dried Squid	0.88	1.61	-11.307	0.000
	Young radish kimchi	1.24	1.87	-9.763	0.000
	Cabbage pickles	1.63	1.98	-5.967	0.000
	Bulgogi	1.52	1.96	-6.572	0.000
	Apple	1.57	1.96	-6.055	0.000
	Chicken	1.39	1.83	-6.980	0.000
	Seasoned miyoek seaweed	1.52	1.89	-5.788	0.000
	Bread	1.76	1.98	-4.055	0.000
	Boiled potatoes	1.83	1.98	-3.029	0.003
more softer	Grilled fish	1.83	1.98	-3.030	0.003
more softer	Total	15.24	19.11	-7.736	0.000

Failing to chew due to being hard : 0, Being able to chew given making it small: 1, Being capable of chewing: 2 (perfect score: 20)

Table VII.

Average score of quality of life before and after dental implantation

	Before		After		t	P value
	Mean	SD	Mean	SD	t	P value
Male	10.11	4.54	11.27	3.80	-3.547	.001
Female	9.78	4.18	11.00	3.05	-2.241	.031
Total	9.99	4.39	11.17	3.53	-4.133	.001

SD: Standard deviation.

TOOLS

Similar articles