ArticleCureus2025
Patient Satisfaction With Dental Implants in the Upper and Lower Arches Placed in a Tertiary Care Setting: A Qualitative Study.
Article in Cureus, 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundDental implants offer functional and aesthetic rehabilitation for edentulous patients. Despite high survival rates, patient satisfaction hinges on more than osseointegration of titanium. This study explores subjective patient satisfaction with implants in maxillary and mandibular anterior and posterior regions in a tertiary care hospital, emphasizing aesthetic, emotional, and logistical dimensions. Methods: A qualitative design was used involving in-depth semi-structured interviews with 30 patients (17 females, 13 males; aged 35-80) who had received dental implants at least six months prior. Transcripts were thematically analysed using QDA (Qualitative Data Analysis) Miner Lite software (Provalis Research, Montreal, Canada). Coding was based on five predefined domains: overall treatment experience, treatment coordination, perceived aesthetic outcomes, functional challenges, and review and recommendations. Results: Of 30 patients, 26 reported an overall positive experience, one was neutral, and three were dissatisfied. Dissatisfaction arose from delays, travel difficulties, language barriers, and aesthetic mismatches. Emotional responses were positive: patients expressed joy in regaining chewing ability, confidence from restored appearance, and gratitude for empathetic care. Conversely, disappointed patients with aesthetic mismatches said they were not likely to recommend the centre or the treatment.
conclusionImplant success must be evaluated holistically, incorporating patient emotions, expectations, and experience. Understanding the full patient journey, including non-clinical barriers, can help practitioners refine care delivery, communication, and prosthetic planning.
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.