Skip to main content

Table 2 Study Characteristics of analyzed studies

From: Patients' expectations from dental implants: a systematic review of the literature

Title SROBE Sample size Sample character Design Method Study character Result
Baracat, 2011 [22] 13.5 50(mean age 49, SD 11.45) · 50 patients seeking dental implant treatment Before/after VAS · VAS to assess patients expectations (esthetic and functional (mastication, comfort, retention results) before and evaluation after(one week) implant treatment · The post-treatment completion ratings significantly exceeded expectations
· The prosthetic procedures ranged from single crowns to full fixed bridges, covering fixed partial bridges and overdentures on two ball abutments. · Positive correlations were found between expectations and posttreatment completion ratings for esthetics
· An inverse correlation was found between age and functional expectations
Heydecke, 2008 [23] 15.5 162 (102, middle aged, ages 35 to 65, MEAN = 51.1, SD = 7.5. 60 senior, ages 65-75, MEAN = 69.3, SD = 3.1) · Participants included in are edentulous for at least 5 years. Before/after VAS · Before randomization, each subject rated their satisfaction with their · Post treatment satisfaction with CD treatment was significantly lower than pretreatment expected satisfaction in both study populations (MA, P < .0001; Senior, P = .036).
current denture and expectations of satisfaction with both IOD and CD treatment
· Both group receive a maxillary conventional denture, then separate into two group
· 6 months post-treatment, all rated · There was no (or only borderline) significant difference between pretreatment expectation and posttreatment satisfaction for patients receiving IODs in both study populations (MA, P = .078; S, P = .057).
their satisfaction with their new prostheses on similar VAS.
· IOD: 2-implant-supported overdenture
· Expectations and satisfaction with treatment were compared.
· CD: conversional overdenture
de Lima 2012 [24] 17 52(28-77 years; Mean = 51.2; SD = 10.6) · 52 individuals who had received implant therapy Before /after VAS · VAS was used to assess expectation before and satisfaction after therapy · Patient expectations before treatment were higher than satisfaction after treatment, but this difference was significant only for esthetics in patients who had received implant-supported FPDs.
· After treatment, Patient also assigned scores for four aspects before and after treatment: mastication, aesthetics, phonetics and comfort of use.
· These individuals received implant-supported single crowns or FPDs (all metal-ceramic) using a standardized technique.
· Likert type scale to gauge patient evaluations of clinician conduct based on previously developed questionnaires.
· If patients received both treatment options, they were included in the FPD group for analysis.
· Negative correlations were found between satisfaction and age and between number of absent teeth and number of post-delivery adjustments, but only for implant-supported FPDs.
· A positive relationship was found for the majority of questions concerning patients' evaluations of clinician conduct and VAS scores.
Hof, 2012 [25] 15 150(Age 18-84 years) · 150 consecutive patients seeking implant treatment Cross-sectional Survey/Scale Questionnaire One: rank their concerns regarding implant therapy by priority · Patient expectations on implant success and predictability are high compared with their reluctance towards treatment costs and duration.
· One quarter of patients wore removable dentures · predictability of treatment success · Acceptance of treatment morbidity is high among patients reporting low denture satisfaction
· time
· 40% had fixed restorations · cost efficiency of treatment · Minimally invasive treatment alternatives are generally preferred.
· avoidance of removable dentures or bone grafting
· 9%edentulous
Questionnaire Two: 16 questions
· Expectation items
· Acceptance and Preferences items
· Second-opinion seeking items
I/II: Pommer 2011 [8],[26] 18 1000 · 1000 adults over 14 years of age representative for the Austrian population Cross-sectional Survey A. 19 items questionnaire · Compared with the survey of 2003, the subjective level of patient information about implant dentistry has significantly increased in the Austrian population.
· Implant Information items
· Sources of information
· Need for patient information about dental implants
· Sample was selected by pre-stratified multi-tiered cluster sampling using factor weighting for the variables sex, age, level of education, net monthly income and size of residence. · The objective level of general knowledge about dental implants was still all but satisfactory revealing unrealistic patient expectations.
· dentists are still the main source of patient information
B. Same with Tepper 2003 [27],[28] · The majority felt that only specialists should perform implant dentistry.
I/II. Tepper, 2003 [27],[28] 13.5 1000 · 1000 adults over 14 years of age representative for the Austrian population Cross-sectional Survey B.16 items questionnaire · Of those familiar with implants as one of the treatment alternatives, 61% reported they would accept implants if the need arose.
· Dental implant acceptance
· Perceived Costs
· Patient satisfaction
A. Same with Pommer.2011 [26]
· Random sampling    · Implant acceptance was highest among males and interviewees below the age of 30 years.
· The interest in implants increased with increasing family incomes.
· All those questioned found implant-supported rehabilitation to be very expensive.
· Many of them blamed the dentists for the high cost.
· One detail was particularly evident: satisfaction among implanted patients was clearly higher than satisfaction rates perceived by them from what they were told about implants by others. First-hand experiences with implants proved to be less biased than reported second-hand information.
Rustemeyer, 2007 [9] 15 315 · mean age 55 +/-14.7 years Cross-sectional Survey 7 special questions about implants to gauge the patient's perceptions of oral hygiene considerations, durability and costs of an implant-supported overdenture, as well as the influence of laymen and media in these perceptions. · 58% of 315 patients questioned thought that implants require the same care as natural teeth,
· no specific seeking implant treatment patients · 61% expected an additional payment of 2000 Euro or less,
· 26 subjects with full dentures, extractions were planned, 121 patients had unsupplied gaps between teeth in the upper or lower jaw, 98 patients had removable dentures with clamps and 71 patients had complete prostheses. · 80% held the function of an implant-supported overdenture as very important
· 54% attached great importance to the aesthetics.
· The expectations that patients have for an implant-supported set are high in contrast to their willingness to make additional payments. There are still misconceptions regarding costs, and these must be resolved individually in practice.
Allen, 1999 [29] 17 61(Implant group:40-83 years old) This study included two groups: Case/Control Scale · The questionnaire consisted of two scales: (a) a subjective appraisal of the patient existing conventional dentures, and (b) their expectations of an implant-retained prosthesis. · Baseline satisfaction with current dentures was low in both groups, with the implant group being significantly less satisfied with comfort and stability of their mandibular dentures.
1.Patients requesting implants to retain a complete prosthesis (implant sample group)
· Perceived ability of the implant group to chew hard foods was less than the control group.
2. A control group of edentulous patients, of similar age and gender distribution as the implant sample group, requesting replacement of their dentures by conventional means.
· Variables assessed for existing maxillary and mandibular prostheses were: (1) general satisfaction, (2) satisfaction compared with natural teeth, (3) retention, (4) stability, (5) comfort (6) appearance, (7) the ability to speak, (8) occlusion, and (9) the ability to chew and swallow sliced bread, cheese, carrots, bacon, lettuce, apples and nuts.
· The implant group's expectations of an implant-retained prosthesis were significantly greater than for a conventional denture.
Grey, 2013 [30] 15.5 9 (49-69 years old) Seven participants had completed implant treatment, one was currently undergoing treatment and one had decided against them. Cross-sectional Interview · Appearance: individual and the social appearance · The main theme to emerge was `normality’. Participants expected implants to restore their oral- related quality of life to `normal’.
· Function · Patients' belief that dental implants are just like natural teeth could be cause for concern if it leads them to treat them as such, and thereby not follow the recommended specialist care they require.
Johannsen, 2012 [31] 15.5 17 (46-81 years old) 10 patients who had undergone dental implant treatment. Seven patients who had been treated with dental implants. Cross-sectional Interview All patients in the study had a previous history of periodontal disease with, in most cases, many years of treatment. · A core category was identified as "Transition from tooth loss, to `Amputation’, and to implants - negative and positive trajectories".
  · Treatment with dental implants improved function, enhanced self-esteem, social life and, thus quality of life.