Social appearance anxiety and oral health-related quality of life in middle-aged adults with implant therapy

Ülkü Tuğba Kalyoncuoğlu; Sara Samur Ergüven

doi:10.3897/folmed.65.e78621

Abstract

Introduction: The success of implant therapy is strongly related to the perceptions and expectations of the patients.

Aim: This study aimed to assess the level of social appearance anxiety and oral health-related quality of life in middle-aged adults with implant-supported fixed prostheses and compare with individuals who have tooth loss without any prosthetic rehabilitation or who have natural teeth.

Materials and methods: The participants (n=292) were divided into three groups: group 1, individuals with implant-supported fixed dental prostheses; group 2, individuals with tooth loss; and group 3, individuals with totally natural teeth. A questionnaire form including basic questions, Social Appearance Anxiety Scale (SAAS), and Oral Health Impact Profile-14 (OHIP-14) was distributed among patients.

Results: Group 2 showed a significantly higher level of SAAS and OHIP-14 scores compared with groups 1 and 3 (p<0.001). The SAAS scores were similar between groups 1 and 3, with no significant differences. The median OHIP-14 score was the lowest in group 3. For all groups, education was related to SAAS and OHIP-14 scores (p=0.037 and 0.002, respectively). The SAAS and OHIP-14 scores were significantly and positively related (p<0.001, r=0.501).

Conclusions: It was concluded that patients with tooth loss had higher levels of SAAS and OHIP-14 scores. Besides, the SAAS scores were similar for patients with implant-supported fixed prostheses and those with natural teeth. Middle-aged adults with higher educational levels tended to present better oral health-related quality of life and lower social appearance anxiety.

Keywords

implant therapy, middle-aged adults, Oral Health Impact Profile-14, oral health-related quality of life, social appearance anxiety

Introduction

The success of implant therapy is strongly related to the knowledge and expectations of the patients.^[1] A majority of patients were completely satisfied with implant therapy in terms of functional and aesthetic outcomes of the treatment.^[2] Previous studies showed that dental implants followed by prosthodontic rehabilitation improved oral health-related quality-of-life scores for patients with all indications for dental implants.^[3] Significant improvements in oral health-related quality of life were reported in terms of both aesthetic and functional aspects in patients with at least one implant in the front dental area.^[4] Dental implants from a patient perspective were evaluated using open-ended questions, and it revealed that dental implants improved function, self-esteem, and social life.^[5] A multicenter study reported that a high percentage of patients were expected to have improved social confidence following implant treatment.^[6]

Social appearance anxiety is a term that expresses an individual’s feelings when his/her physical appearance is evaluated by other individuals.^[7] Oral health-related quality of life is another multidimensional concept used to assess an individual’s comfort while eating, sleeping, and engaging in social interactions, self-esteem, and satisfaction concerning his/her oral health.^[8–10]

Although many distinguished studies assessed the relationship of implant therapy with oral health-related quality of life and biosocial factors, no study reported on the social appearance anxiety and oral health-related quality of life simultaneously in middle-aged adults.

Aim

The aim of the present study was to compare the levels of social appearance anxiety and oral health-related quality of life in middle-aged adults who had implant-supported fixed dental prostheses for at least two years without any complaints to those of individuals who had tooth loss without any prosthetic rehabilitation or who had natural teeth.

Materials and methods

This study was approved by the University of Health Sciences / Gülhane Scientific Research Ethics Committee with the registration number 2020/371. It was performed following the guidelines of the Declaration of Helsinki. It was conducted on 292 middle-aged adult patients: Individuals between the ages of 44 and 65 and who met the characteristics of one of the three groups determined as: have implant-supported fixed dental prostheses for at least two years without any complaints, have tooth loss without any rehabilitation, or have natural teeth were included in the study. Patients wearing removable dentures were excluded. The age range classification was determined as 44–65 years, proposed by Medical Subject Headings (MeSH) for the study.^[11] Data were collected from October 2020 to June 2021. The three groups were evaluated by researchers according to clinical and radiographical examinations. Patients were informed about the study protocol, and written informed consents were obtained. The first part of the questionnaire form includes basic questions on demographic data including age, sex, education level, and marital status. In the second part of the questionnaire form, the Social Appearance Anxiety Scale (SAAS) and Oral Health Impact Profile-14 (OHIP-14) were included that aim to determine social appearance anxiety and oral health-related quality of life.

The sample size calculation was performed using the G power statistical software considering the primary outcome of the present study, which was the social appearance anxiety assessment. With an alpha risk of 0.05 and a power of 90%, a minimum sample size of 87 patients in each group was required to obtain a significant difference. Therefore, a minimum of 90 patients were included in each group.

The SAAS was created by Hart et al.^[7] to measure the anxiety about being evaluated by others because of appearance. The use of SAAS has been proven as an effective measure of social appearance anxiety.^[12] The scale contained 16 questions related to how participants sensed their appearance. For each question, a score ranging from 1 to 5 was given. The scores ranged between 16 and 80, and higher scores reflected higher social appearance anxiety.

The OHIP is a scale that measures people’s perceptions of the impact of oral conditions on their well-being. ^[9] OHIP-14 was developed as the short-form version of OHIP, which is a well-known measure with good reliability and validity.^[10] The scale comprised 14 questions; for each question a score ranging from 0 to 4 was given, and higher scores reflected the deterioration of oral health-related quality of life.

Statistical analysis

Statistical analysis was performed using version 23 of IBM-SPSS for Windows (SPSS Inc, IL, USA). For statistical analysis, the Shapiro-Wilk, Mann-Whitney U, Kruskal-Wallis, and Kolmogorov-Smirnov tests were used. The Shapiro-Wilk (n<50) and Kolmogorov-Smirnov (n≥50) tests were used to analyze the normality of quantitative variables. The Mann-Whitney U test was used for comparing two independent groups and Kruskal-Wallis test for comparing more than two groups. The level of significance for all tests was set at p<0.05.

Results

Data of 292 patients were analyzed. Participants’ characteristics are presented in Table 1. The participants were divided into three groups: group 1 (n=105), individuals with implant-supported fixed dental prostheses; group 2 (n=95), individuals with tooth loss without any prosthetic rehabilitation; and group 3 (n=92), individuals with totally natural teeth. The mean age of patients was 51.55 years. The age distribution between groups is presented in Table 2. The median age of patients in group 3 was significantly lower (p<0.001). The median SAAS and OHIP-14 scores are given in Table 3.

The distribution of SAAS and OHIP-14 scores between groups is presented in Table 4. Group 2 showed a significantly higher level of SAAS and OHIP-14 scores compared with groups 1 and 3 (p<0.001). The SAAS scores were similar between groups 1 and 3, with no significant differences. In group 3, the median OHIP-14 scores were the lowest. The SAAS and OHIP-14 scores were significantly and positively related (p<0.001, r=0.501).

No significant correlation was found between sex and SAAS or OHIP-14 scores (p values=0.902 and 0.169, respectively). For all groups, education was related to SAAS and OHIP-14 scores, as shown in Table 5 (p=0.037 and 0.02, respectively).

Table 1.

Download as

CSV

XLSX

Values of descriptive statistics

		Frequency	%
Gender	Male	109	37.3
	Female	183	62.7
	Total	292	100.0
Marital status	Married	237	81.2
	Single	55	18.8
	Total	292	100.0
Educational level	Primary school	12	4.1
	Secondary school	8	2.7
	High school	37	12.7
	University	235	80.5
	Total	292	100.0
Group	I: Implant-supported fixed dental prostheses	105	36.0
	II: Tooth loss without any prosthetic rehabilitation	95	32.5
	III: Natural teeth	92	31.5
	Total	292	100.0

Table 2.

Download as

CSV

XLSX

Age distribution between groups

Group	Median (IQR)	Min–Max	Mean ± SD	χ²	p
I	52.00 (12.00)	44.00–65.00	53.09±7.047	17.044	<0.001
II	51.00 (10.00)	44.00–65.00	51.75±6.390
III	45.50 (10.00)	44.00–65.00	49.59±6.844

Table 3.

Download as

CSV

XLSX

Median SAAS and OHIP-14 scores

	Mean ± SD	Minimum	Maximum	Median (IQR)
OHIP-14 Score	9.37±7.744	0.00	41.00	7.00 (9.00)
SAAS Score	24.28±9.659	16.00	69.00	21.00 (9.00)

Table 4.

Download as

CSV

XLSX

SAAS and OHIP-14 score distribution among groups

	Group	Median (IQR)	Min–Max	Mean ± SD	χ²	P
OHIP-14 Score	I	8.00 (9.00)	0.00–31.00	9.30±6.274	49.232	<0.001
	II	11.00 (13.00)	0.00–41.00	13.38±9.661
	III	5.00 (5.00)	0.00–24.00	5.33±4.127
SAAS Score	I	20.00 (6.00)	16.00–45.00	22.40±6.566	28.823	<0.001
	II	24.00 (18.00)	16.00–69.00	29.72±13.237
	III	20.00 (6.50)	16.00–35.00	20.82±4.581

Table 5.

Download as

CSV

XLSX

Educational distribution between SAAS and OHIP-14 scores

	Educational level	Median (IQR)	Min–Max	Mean ± SD	χ²	P
OHIP-14 Scores	Primary school	8.50 (16.50)	0.00–26.00	11.33±9.661	14.961	0.002
	Secondary school	20.50 (16.50)	8.00–41.00	22.13±11.294
	High school	8.00 (11.00)	0.00–37.00	11.11±8.752
	University	7.00 (7.00)	0.00–36.00	8.57±6.906
SAAS Scores	Primary school	23.00 (10.50)	17.00–39.00	24.58±7.229	8.477	0.037
	Secondary school	36.00 (17.50)	16.00–52.00	36.13±12.112
	High school	22.00 (10.00)	16.00–61.00	24.54±9.979
	University	21.00 (8.00)	16.00–69.00	23.82±9.425

Discussion

Treatment with dental implants has become a well-documented and validated option in dentistry and is increasingly used worldwide.^[13,14] Over the years, researchers have focused on the technical aspects of implant dentistry, such as the survival rate, surface characteristics, and surgical/prosthetic procedure. However, the success of the implant therapy is strongly related to the knowledge and expectations of the patients.^[1] In recent years, dental professionals have focused on patient perception regarding expectations, needs, satisfaction, and oral health-related quality of life.^[3,6] As part of achieving successful treatment, it is essential to take into consideration the understanding and expectations of patients.^[15]

Tooth loss without replacement of missing teeth reduces the physical index of quality of life among elders.^[16] Oral health-related quality of life includes a subjective evaluation of individuals’ oral health and functional and emotional well-being.^[17] Larsson et al.^[18] showed that orofacial appearance had a moderate impact on oral health-related quality of life in patients with aesthetic-related needs. Patient-specific dental implants improved oral health-related quality of life in patients with severe bone deficiencies related to tumor therapy.^[19] Significant improvements in oral health-related quality of life have been reported in terms of both aesthetic and functional aspects in patients with at least one implant in the front dental area.^[4] However, single molar implants had no impact on aesthetics and self-esteem.^[15] Personality profiles also had an impact on patients’ oral health-related quality of life following implant treatment.^[20]

Social appearance anxiety is defined as the anxiety that an individual feels when others evaluate his/her overall appearance. Self-perceived image of dental aesthetics can significantly affect an individual’s well-being, which can be related to his/her self-confidence.^[21] Improvement in aesthetics has been defined as one of the main reasons by patients before dental implant therapy.^[22]

Age of the patient could have influence on social appearance perception. Although teenage individuals are sensitive about their facial aesthetics^[23], older people also have some image problems. Furthermore, it has been emphasized that individuals in their 50s have body image dissatisfaction related to changes with growing older.^[24] Previous studies focused on problems related to body image dissatisfaction in midlife adults.^[25] Middle-age is a different age category consisting of adult and comparatively older people, when the age-related changes appear in terms of different physical and orofacial conditions. This is a critical age group concerned about their body image and may suffer from unhealthy standards.^[26] Therefore middle age adults were selected in our study and age range was defined as individuals aged 44–65 years, as proposed by MeSH.^[11]

Grey et al.^[27] reported that individuals expected implants to restore their oral-related quality of life to “normal.” Patients expected that fixed implant-supported prostheses were as good as natural teeth.^[28] Pommer et al.^[29] reported higher satisfaction scores in patients with implant-supported rehabilitation compared with those with conventional fixed or removable dentures. The aesthetic of implant-supported fixed dental prostheses has been highly rated by patients.^[30] Ali et al.^[31] reported that implant-supported fixed dental prostheses caused greater improvements in oral health-related quality of life than tooth-supported fixed dental prostheses and removable partial dentures.

In the present study, we hypothesized that oral health-related quality of life and social appearance anxiety in patients with implant-supported fixed dental prostheses could be different from those in individuals who had tooth loss without any prosthetic rehabilitation or who had natural teeth. It was found that patients with tooth loss had higher levels of SAAS and OHIP-14 scores compared with those with natural teeth and implant-supported fixed prostheses. However, social appearance anxiety scores were similar for patients with implant-supported fixed dental prostheses and those with natural teeth. The results of the present study supported previous findings in that implant-supported fixed dental prostheses had a similar impact on patient perception as natural teeth.

This study had several limitations. Firstly, the personality traits of participants were not examined. Secondly, factors that might influence the perception and anxiety levels of individuals as the duration of tooth loss, region of tooth loss, previous removable denture experience, and etiological reason for extraction were not examined for participants in group 2.

Conclusions

This study results suggested that middle-aged adult patients with implant-supported fixed dental prostheses and those with natural teeth had similar oral health-related quality of life and social appearance anxiety scores. Moreover, these scores were associated with better biosocial performance in terms of oral health-related quality of life and social appearance anxiety than in patients with tooth loss.

Implant treatment has great importance for overcoming the functional and aesthetic needs in current dentistry in terms of restoring a youthful appearance and improving self-perception. More comprehensive studies are warranted to investigate the biosocial effects of implant treatment among patients with different age groups are needed.

Acknowledgments

The authors have no support to report.

Funding

The authors have no funding to report.

Competing interest

The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.

Author contributions

Ü.T.K.: Conception and design, acquisition of data and analysis and interpretation of data; S.S.E.: Conception and design, literature search, and writing of the manuscript. All authors have agreed on the final version of the manuscript.

References

1. Rusteyer J, Bremerich A. Patients’ knowledge and expectations regarding dental implants: assessment by questionnaire. Int J Oral Maxillofacial Surg 2007; 36:814–7.

2. Pjetturson BE, Karoussis I, Bürgin W, et al. Patients’ satisfaction following implant therapy. A 10-year prospective cohort study. Clin Oral Impl Res 2005; 16:185–93.

3. Nickenig HJ, Wichmann M, Terheyden H, et al. Oral health-related quality of life and implant therapy: A prospective multicenter study of preoperative, intermediate, and post-treatment assessment. J Craniomaxillofac Surg 2016; 44:753–7.

4. Kriz P, Seydlova M, Dostalova T, et al. Dental implants and improvement of oral health-related quality of life. Community Dent Oral Epidemiol 2012; 40:66–71.

5. Johannsen A, Westergren A, Johannsen G. Dental implants from the patients perspective: Transition from tooth loss, through amputation to implants- negative and positive trajectories. J Clin Periodontol 2012; 39:681–7.

6. Yao J, Li M, Tang H, et al. What do patients expect from treatment with dental implants? Perceptions, expectations and misconceptions: a multicenter study. Clin Oral Impl Res 2017; 28:261–71.

7. Hart TA, Flora DB, Palyo SA, et al. Development and examination of the social appearance anxiety scale. Assessment 2008; 15:48–59.

8. Khanagar AB, Al-Ehaideb A, Shivanna MM, et al. Age-related oral changes and their impact on oral health-related quality of life among frail elderly population: a review. J Contemp Dent Pract 2020; 21:1298–303.

9. Slade GD, Spencer AJ. Development and evaluation of the Oral Health Impact Profile. Community Dent Health 1994; 11:3–11.

10. Slade GD. Derivation and validation of a short-form oral health impact profile. Community Dent Oral Epidemiol 1997; 25:284–90.

11. Geifman N, Cohen R, Rubin E. Redefining meaningful age groups in the context of disease. Age 2013; 35:2357–66.

12. Levinson CA, Rodebaugh TL. Validation of the Social Appearance Anxiety Scale: factor, convergent, and divergent validity. Assessment 2011; 18:350–6.

13. Ng PC, Pow EH, Ching SH, et al. Dental implant practice among Hong Kong general dental practitioners in 2004 and 2008. Implant Dent 2011; 20:95–105.

14. Wang G, Gao X, Lo EC. Public perceptions of dental implants: a qualitative study. J Dent 2015; 43:798–805.

15. Atieh MA, Morgaine KC, Duncan WJ. A qualitative analysis on participants’ perspective on oral implants. Clin Oral Impl Res 2016; 27:383–91.

16. Mack F, Schwahn C, Feine J, et al. The impact of tooth loss on general health related quality of life among elderly Pomeranians: results from the study of health in Pomerania (SHIP-0). Int J Prosthodont 2005; 18:414–9.

17. Sischo L, Broder HL. Oral health-related quality of life: what, why, how, and future implications. J Dent Res 2011; 90:1264–70.

18. Larsson P, Bondemark L, Häggman-Henrikson B. The impact of oro-facial appearance on oral health-related quality of life: A systematic review. J Oral Rehabil 2021; 48:271–81.

19. Jehn P, Spalthoff S, Korn P, et al. Oral health-related quality of life in tumour patients treated with patient-specific dental implants. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2020; 49:1067–72.

20. Abu Hantash RO, AL-Omiri MK, AL-Wahadni AM. Psychological impact on implant patients’ oral health-related quality of life. Clin Oral Impl Res 2006; 17:116–23.

21. Afroz S, Rathi S, Rajput G, et al. Dental esthetics and its impact on psycho-social well-being and dental self-confidence: a campus based survey of north Indian university students. J Indian Prosthodont Soc 2013; 13:455–60.

22. Aldosari AF, Habib SR. Assessment of patients’ knowledge on improving function and appearance with dental implant therapy. Oral Implantol 2018; 11(2):95–105.

23. Atik E, Önde MM, Domnori S, et al. A comparison of self-esteem and social appearance anxiety levels of individuals with different types of malocclusions. Acta Odont Scandinav 2021; 79:89–95.

24. Hofmeier SM, Runfola CD, Sala M, et al. Body image, aging, identity in women over 50: the Gender and Body Image (GABI) study. J Women Aging 2017; 29:3–14.

25. McGuinness S, Taylor JE. Understanding body image dissatisfaction and disordered eating in midlife adults. New Zealand J Psychol 2016; 45:4–12.

26. Sánchez-Cabrero R, Leon-Mejia AC, Arigita-Garcia A, et al. Improvement of body satisfaction in older people: An experimental study. Front Psychol 2019; 10:2823.

27. Grey EB, Harcourt D, O’Sullivan D, et al. A qualitative study of patients’ motivations and expectations for dental implants. Br Dent J 2013; 214:E1.

28. Kashbour WA, Rousseau NS, Ellis JS, et al. Patients’ experience of dental implant treatment: A literature review of key qualitative studies. J Dent 2015; 43:789–97.

29. Pommer B, Zechner W, Watzak G, et al. Progress and trends in patients’ mindset on dental implants. II: implant acceptance, patient- perceive costs and patient satisfaction. Clin Oral Impl Res 2010; 22:106–12.

30. Feine J, Abou-Ayash S, Al Mardini M, et al. Group 3 ITI Consensus Report: Patient-reported outcome measures associated with implant dentistry. Clin Oral Impl Res 2018; 29:270–5.

31. Ali Z, Baker S, Shahrbaf S, et al. Oral health-related quality of life after prosthodontic treatment for patients with partial edentulism: A systematic review and meta-analysis. J Prosthet Dent 2019; 121:59–68.