{"title":"Impact of rehabilitation with dental implants on the quality of life of patients undergoing maxillofacial reconstruction: a systematic review.","authors":"Simra Azher, Roisin McGrath, Yasaman Mohammadi Kamalabadi, Georgios Tsakos, Felix Sim, Ankur Singh","doi":"10.1007/s11136-024-03795-w","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>Maxillofacial reconstruction with dental implants in microvascular tissue flaps aims to improve mastication. However, the quality of life (QoL) impact of this intervention is yet to be determined. This systematic review assessed the QoL impact of maxillofacial reconstruction with implant-supported teeth compared to no dental rehabilitation, removable dentures, and obturator (modified denture). Additionally, we examined instruments applied to measure QoL in maxillofacial reconstruction.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Databases Ovid Medline and Embase, Scopus, Web of Science and Handle on QoL were searched. Cohort, case-control and randomized controlled trials (RCT) were narratively synthesized for QoL captured through validated instruments. Study methodological quality was assessed using Cochrane Risk of Bias 2 and Risk of Bias in Non-randomized studies of Exposure. Instruments underwent COSMIN content validity analysis.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Of a total of 2735 studies screened, the three included studies (two cohort and one RCT) showed improved QoL with maxillofacial reconstruction compared to obturator and no dental rehabilitation. However, these studies have high risk of bias due to confounding. None of the instruments achieved a sufficient relevance rating for maxillofacial reconstruction, having been designed for other target populations and there is no evidence on their content validity for this population, but the EORTC QLQ30 H&N35 satisfied more COSMIN criteria than the UW-QOL and OHIP-14.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Although studies showed favourable QoL with maxillofacial reconstruction involving dental implants, these have high risk of bias and further studies are needed to establish the impact. Existing QoL instruments lack content validity and tailored instruments are needed for QoL evaluation in maxillofacial reconstruction.</p>","PeriodicalId":20748,"journal":{"name":"Quality of Life Research","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":3.3000,"publicationDate":"2024-10-17","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Quality of Life Research","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-024-03795-w","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Purpose: Maxillofacial reconstruction with dental implants in microvascular tissue flaps aims to improve mastication. However, the quality of life (QoL) impact of this intervention is yet to be determined. This systematic review assessed the QoL impact of maxillofacial reconstruction with implant-supported teeth compared to no dental rehabilitation, removable dentures, and obturator (modified denture). Additionally, we examined instruments applied to measure QoL in maxillofacial reconstruction.
Methods: Databases Ovid Medline and Embase, Scopus, Web of Science and Handle on QoL were searched. Cohort, case-control and randomized controlled trials (RCT) were narratively synthesized for QoL captured through validated instruments. Study methodological quality was assessed using Cochrane Risk of Bias 2 and Risk of Bias in Non-randomized studies of Exposure. Instruments underwent COSMIN content validity analysis.
Results: Of a total of 2735 studies screened, the three included studies (two cohort and one RCT) showed improved QoL with maxillofacial reconstruction compared to obturator and no dental rehabilitation. However, these studies have high risk of bias due to confounding. None of the instruments achieved a sufficient relevance rating for maxillofacial reconstruction, having been designed for other target populations and there is no evidence on their content validity for this population, but the EORTC QLQ30 H&N35 satisfied more COSMIN criteria than the UW-QOL and OHIP-14.
Conclusion: Although studies showed favourable QoL with maxillofacial reconstruction involving dental implants, these have high risk of bias and further studies are needed to establish the impact. Existing QoL instruments lack content validity and tailored instruments are needed for QoL evaluation in maxillofacial reconstruction.
期刊介绍:
Quality of Life Research is an international, multidisciplinary journal devoted to the rapid communication of original research, theoretical articles and methodological reports related to the field of quality of life, in all the health sciences. The journal also offers editorials, literature, book and software reviews, correspondence and abstracts of conferences.
Quality of life has become a prominent issue in biometry, philosophy, social science, clinical medicine, health services and outcomes research. The journal''s scope reflects the wide application of quality of life assessment and research in the biological and social sciences. All original work is subject to peer review for originality, scientific quality and relevance to a broad readership.
This is an official journal of the International Society of Quality of Life Research.