The impact of dietary advice on edentulous adults' denture satisfaction and oral health-related quality of life 6 months after intervention

Objective: The aim of this study was to compare the impact of customised dietary advice on patients' satisfaction with their dentures and oral health‐related quality of life (OHRQoL) in patients wearing implant‐supported mandibular overdentures (IOD) or conventional dentures (CD). Materials and methods: In this prospective cohort study, 28 IOD (two implant‐retained mandibular overdenture) and 26 CD patients completed a denture satisfaction scale and the 20‐item oral health impact profile (OHIP‐20) before and 6 months following provision of customised dietary advice. Results: At 6 months following provision of individualised dietary advice, the IOD group showed significantly greater satisfaction than the conventional group for denture comfort (80.6, ± 15.6, vs. 68.7 ± 15.6 P=0.001), stability (75.8 ± 15.9 vs. 59.5 ± 30.4, P=0.002), and perceived chewing ability (79 ± 30.4 vs. 59.5 ± 30.4, P=0.027) ± when adjusted for baseline scores. Before delivery of the dietary advice there were no significant differences between groups for Satisfaction or OHIP scores. No difference in OHRQoL was seen between groups. Conclusions: The delivery of customised dietary advice to edentulous patients impacts differently on their satisfaction with denture comfort, stability and chewing ability depending on the nature of their prosthesis. This re‐evaluation of satisfaction occurs when edentulous patients challenge themselves to consume more fruits, vegetables and fibre‐rich foods. The IOD group reported an increased level of satisfaction and perceived chewing ability whereas it appeared that CD wearers may have had their awareness of the shortcomings of this sort of prosthesis reawakened. To cite this article: Ellis JS, Elfeky AF, Moynihan PJ, Seal C, Hyland RM, Thomason M. The impact of dietary advice on edentulous adults' denture satisfaction and oral health‐related quality of life 6 months after intervention. Clin. Oral Impl. Res. 21, 2010; 386–391. doi: 10.1111/j.1600‐0501.2009.01859.x