Work

The Impact of Peri‐Implant Diseases and Complications on Oral Health‐Related Quality of Life Following Dental Implant Therapy in Norway: A Cross‐Sectional Study

Year: 2025

Type: article

Abstract: OBJECTIVES: To report oral health-related quality of life (OHRQoL) in a sample rehabilitated with dental implants and assess the influence of self-reported implant complications and clinical peri-implant status. A secondary aim was to investigate associations between OHIP-14 scores and patient-related variables. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The Norwegian National Insurance Scheme registry for implant rehabilitation in 2014 was searched, and patients (n = 3083) were mailed a survey including OHIP-14, questions about peri-implant status, and patient-related variables. A subsample was examined clinically (n = 242). Associations of self-reported implant complications and clinical peri-implant status with OHIP-14 scores were evaluated by the Kruskal-Wallis test and logistic regression models. RESULTS: The OHIP-14 mean sum score reported by the 1299 survey respondents was 4.1 (± 6.4). Self-report of complications was associated with higher OHIP-14 scores in a dose-dependent manner. Lower education (OR 1.54, 95% CI 1.05-2.22), female sex (OR 1.75, 95% CI 1.23-2.56), technical complication(s) (OR 1.58, 95% CI: 1.07-2.34), biological complication(s) (OR 2.41, 95% CI 1.67-3.49) and poor cleansability (OR 2.94, 95% CI 1.64-5.37) were associated (p < 0.05) with higher OHIP-14 mean sum scores in the adjusted regression model. For the 242 patients examined clinically, the OHIP-14 mean sum score was 3.8 (± 6.5). Peri-implant soft tissue dehiscence (OR 2.53, 95% CI 1.17-5.49) was associated with higher OHIP-14 mean sum scores in the adjusted regression model. CONCLUSIONS: OHIP-14 scores were low in this study, indicating good OHRQoL following implant rehabilitation in Norway. Complications lowered OHRQoL in a dose-response manner, confirmed by self-reports of complications and by the presence of peri-implant soft tissue dehiscence.

Source: Clinical Oral Implants Research

DOI: 10.1111/clr.14467