AI Article Synopsis

  • The study evaluated how different assessments of cleft lip and palate patients influence the success of dental implants and overall patient satisfaction.
  • It analyzed records from 40 patients, comparing those treated with implants to those who chose other prosthetic options.
  • Results showed a 90% survival rate for implants, with higher assessment scores correlating with successful outcomes.
  • The findings highlight the importance of considering a combination of bone and soft tissue evaluations when planning rehabilitation.

Article Abstract

Background: Bone height assessment alone is frequently used to guide rehabilitation choice, without consideration for soft tissues or adjacent teeth. This study aimed to evaluate the impact of different preoperative cleft assessments on implant success and patient satisfaction.

Methods: The study involved a retrospective assessment of records from 40 patients with cleft lip and palate (CLP). The alveolar cleft score (ACS; clinical criteria), interdental alveolar bone height (IABH) score (radiological criteria), patient compliance score (dental hygiene, medical visit observance, and smoking), and a novel combined score (IABH-ACS-Compliance) were assessed from patient records. Patients who required prosthetic tooth rehabilitation in the cleft dental arch space were included. Twenty-six patients (Group 1) were treated with dental implants, and 14 patients (Group 2) selected another prosthetic option (fixed prosthodontics, removal prosthesis), orthodontic space closure, or no rehabilitation. The main outcomes measured were relative implant success (no implant loss involving marginal bone loss ≤ 1.9 mm) for patients treated with dental implant therapy (Group 1) and patient satisfaction for all patients (Groups 1 and 2).

Results: Forty dental implants were placed in the patients in Group 1. Four implants in four patients (Group 1 relative failure, RF) were lost (implant survival rate of 90%) after 36 (± 12.4) months of follow-up. Twenty-two patients who received implants belonged to the relative implant success group (Group 1 RS). The average "IABH-ACS-Compliance" scores were significantly different (p < 0.05): 16.90 ± 2.35 and 12.75 ± 0.43 for the Group 1 RS and RF groups, respectively.

Conclusions: Preoperative cleft parameters have an impact on relative implant success and patient satisfaction. The new cleft assessment combined-score ("IABH-ACS-Compliance") allows an accurate selection of cleft cases eligible for dental implants, thereby improving postoperative outcomes.

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8925145PMC
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12903-022-02040-5DOI Listing

Publication Analysis

Top Keywords

implant success
16
patients group
16
implants patients
12
patients
10
preoperative cleft
8
dental implant
8
patients cleft
8
bone height
8
records patients
8
treated dental
8

Similar Publications

Want AI Summaries of new PubMed Abstracts delivered to your In-box?

Enter search terms and have AI summaries delivered each week - change queries or unsubscribe any time!