Patient satisfaction following dental implant treatment: A survey
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSES: This aim of this cross-sectional study was to investigate the factors associated with patient satisfaction in patients with a dental implant-supported single crown or fixed prosthesis. MATERIALS AND METHODS: One hundred and ninety-six patients with dental implants functioning more than 1 year were provided with a 13-question questionnaire to report their satisfaction regarding the functional aspects, aesthetic outcome, cleansing ability, general satisfaction, treatment cost, and overall satisfaction. Patient satisfaction was reported using a visual analogue scale (VAS). The association of these variables and each aspect of satisfaction were investigated by multivariate linear regression analysis. RESULTS: One hundred forty-four of 196 patients reported high overall satisfaction (VAS > 80%). All aspects of patient satisfaction levels were very high (mean VAS > 80%), except for satisfaction in cleansing ability and treatment cost (mean VAS < 75%). The patients with a history of implant failure had significantly lower satisfaction in the functional aspects, aesthetic outcome, and general satisfaction than patients without implant failure (p ≤ 0.001). The subjects who experienced mechanical complication were less satisfied with treatment cost (p = 0.002). Sinus augmentation negatively affected functional satisfaction compared with individuals without sinus augmentation (p = 0.041). The subjects with a higher income or a posterior implant had significantly higher overall satisfaction (p = 0.003 and p < 0.001, respectively). Moreover, restoration by specialists positively affected general satisfaction compared with being restored by post-graduate students (p = 0.01). CONCLUSION: Patients restored with a dental implant-supported single crown or fixed prosthesis had very high patient satisfaction. Implant failure, mechanical complication, and sinus augmentation negatively affected patient satisfaction in multiple aspects. In contrast, the factors positively affecting patient satisfaction were a posterior implant, patient's monthly income, and restoration by specialists. These results have to be interpreted with care due to the cross-sectional study design.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".