Patient satisfaction following dental implant treatment: A survey.

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. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]