{"title":"A Qualitative Research Study Comparing the Quality of Life of Implant Treated and Endodontically Treated Patients.","authors":"Gülçin Cagay Sevencan, Hilal Gülgezen Aydin","doi":"10.3290/j.ohpd.c_2283","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>In recent years, advancements in technology have led to significant developments in the fields of dental implants and endodontic treatment. These technological improvements have resulted in better treatment outcomes and enhanced quality of life for patients undergoing these procedures. The objective of this study is to compare the quality of life related to oral health from the patients' perspective between single-tooth root canal treatment (RCT) and single-tooth dental implant (DI) treatment.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Patients in the RCT (n = 21) and DI (n = 19) groups, treated by experienced endodontists and prosthodontists, completed a two-part questionnaire after permanent restorations. The first part collected demographic and socioeconomic data, while the second part included a shortened version of the Oral Health Impact Profile (OHIP-14). Six focus group discussions were conducted for thematic analysis. For the comparison of OHIP-14 sub-dimension and total scores by groups, the independent samples t-test and the Mann-Whitney U test were used, while the Fisher Freeman-Halton test and Yates' continuity correction evaluated categorical data (α = 0.05).</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Statistically significant differences favoured DI in total OHIP scores (P = 0.041), social disability (P = 0.028), and psychological disability (P = 0.012). No statistically significant differences in mean total OHIP values were found between socioeconomic classes for either treatment (RCT; P = 0.892, DI; P = 0.572).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>The results of this study indicate that the overall OHIP scores were comparable, with a high level of satisfaction observed for both treatment modalities. Content analysis of the discussion groups revealed several themes. These can be listed as: importance of preserving the tooth; dentist visits; treatment costs; physical pain; psychological discomfort; aesthetics; function; and treatment satisfaction. However, patients noted that both treatments improved their oral health and they valued the preservation of natural teeth.</p>","PeriodicalId":19696,"journal":{"name":"Oral health & preventive dentistry","volume":"23 ","pages":"551-558"},"PeriodicalIF":1.4000,"publicationDate":"2025-09-26","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12465838/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Oral health & preventive dentistry","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3290/j.ohpd.c_2283","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"DENTISTRY, ORAL SURGERY & MEDICINE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Purpose: In recent years, advancements in technology have led to significant developments in the fields of dental implants and endodontic treatment. These technological improvements have resulted in better treatment outcomes and enhanced quality of life for patients undergoing these procedures. The objective of this study is to compare the quality of life related to oral health from the patients' perspective between single-tooth root canal treatment (RCT) and single-tooth dental implant (DI) treatment.
Methods: Patients in the RCT (n = 21) and DI (n = 19) groups, treated by experienced endodontists and prosthodontists, completed a two-part questionnaire after permanent restorations. The first part collected demographic and socioeconomic data, while the second part included a shortened version of the Oral Health Impact Profile (OHIP-14). Six focus group discussions were conducted for thematic analysis. For the comparison of OHIP-14 sub-dimension and total scores by groups, the independent samples t-test and the Mann-Whitney U test were used, while the Fisher Freeman-Halton test and Yates' continuity correction evaluated categorical data (α = 0.05).
Results: Statistically significant differences favoured DI in total OHIP scores (P = 0.041), social disability (P = 0.028), and psychological disability (P = 0.012). No statistically significant differences in mean total OHIP values were found between socioeconomic classes for either treatment (RCT; P = 0.892, DI; P = 0.572).
Conclusion: The results of this study indicate that the overall OHIP scores were comparable, with a high level of satisfaction observed for both treatment modalities. Content analysis of the discussion groups revealed several themes. These can be listed as: importance of preserving the tooth; dentist visits; treatment costs; physical pain; psychological discomfort; aesthetics; function; and treatment satisfaction. However, patients noted that both treatments improved their oral health and they valued the preservation of natural teeth.
期刊介绍：
Clinicians, general practitioners, teachers, researchers, and public health administrators will find this journal an indispensable source of essential, timely information about scientific progress in the fields of oral health and the prevention of caries, periodontal diseases, oral mucosal diseases, and dental trauma. Central topics, including oral hygiene, oral epidemiology, oral health promotion, and public health issues, are covered in peer-reviewed articles such as clinical and basic science research reports; reviews; invited focus articles, commentaries, and guest editorials; and symposium, workshop, and conference proceedings.
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：
京公网安备 11010802042870号
