ArticleOral health & preventive dentistry2025
A Qualitative Research Study Comparing the Quality of Life of Implant Treated and Endodontically Treated Patients.
Article in Oral health & preventive dentistry, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeIn recent years, advancements in technology have led to significant developments in the fields of dental implants and endodontic treatment. These technological improvements have resulted in better treatment outcomes and enhanced quality of life for patients undergoing these procedures. The objective of this study is to compare the quality of life related to oral health from the patients' perspective between single-tooth root canal treatment (RCT) and single-tooth dental implant (DI) treatment.
methodsPatients in the RCT (n = 21) and DI (n = 19) groups, treated by experienced endodontists and prosthodontists, completed a two-part questionnaire after permanent restorations. The first part collected demographic and socioeconomic data, while the second part included a shortened version of the Oral Health Impact Profile (OHIP-14). Six focus group discussions were conducted for thematic analysis. For the comparison of OHIP-14 sub-dimension and total scores by groups, the independent samples t-test and the Mann-Whitney U test were used, while the Fisher Freeman-Halton test and Yates' continuity correction evaluated categorical data (α = 0.05).
resultsStatistically significant differences favoured DI in total OHIP scores (P = 0.041), social disability (P = 0.028), and psychological disability (P = 0.012). No statistically significant differences in mean total OHIP values were found between socioeconomic classes for either treatment (RCT; P = 0.892, DI; P = 0.572).
conclusionThe results of this study indicate that the overall OHIP scores were comparable, with a high level of satisfaction observed for both treatment modalities. Content analysis of the discussion groups revealed several themes. These can be listed as: importance of preserving the tooth; dentist visits; treatment costs; physical pain; psychological discomfort; aesthetics; function; and treatment satisfaction. However, patients noted that both treatments improved their oral health and they valued the preservation of natural teeth.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.