Abstract
BACKGROUND: Despite increasing interest in patient-reported outcomes in implant dentistry, there is a lack of consensus on tool selection and outcome prioritization to assess patient-reported outcomes in implant dentistry. This study validates an instrument designed to support clinicians in evaluating patient experience and knowledge for personalized implant therapy. METHODOLOGY: Patients with dental implants that had been functioning for at least one year were included in this cross-sectional study. A five-point Likert questionnaire (Implant Treatment Experience and Knowledge Scale; ITEKS) was administered to measure patients' perceived knowledge of peri-implant health/disease and their satisfaction with the treatment. The reliability of the questionnaire was analyzed using Cronbach's alpha. Exploratory factor analysis was used to examine the underlying structure of the questionnaire. Correlations between the OHIP-14, a widely used instrument for assessing oral health-related quality of life, and the administered scales were analyzed to examine convergent validity. The potential influence of patient-related factors (age, gender, education, source of information, and peri-implant diagnosis) was investigated. RESULTS: A 28-item tool was used to assess dental implant treatment related awareness, satisfaction, post-treatment attitudes, and the etiology, treatment, and risk factors of peri-implantitis. The mean functional time of dental implants was 6.69 years. Psychometric properties were evaluated using exploratory factor analysis and Cronbach's alpha. Cronbach's alpha values for these tools were.864 and.779, respectively. Peri-implantitis was significantly associated with decreased patient satisfaction (p < .001). No statistically significant gender differences were observed for OHIP, Implant Treatment Experience Metric (ITEM), or Implant Patients Knowledge-Awareness Scale (IPKAS) scores (p > .05). Participants with advanced education exhibited significantly higher ITEM scores than those with basic education (p = .028). Furthermore, OHIP scores were significantly higher in the peri-implantitis group compared to both the peri-implant health and peri-implant mucositis groups (p < .001). Conversely, ITEM scores were significantly lower in the peri-implantitis group compared to the health and mucositis groups (p < .001). CONCLUSIONS: The instrument demonstrated methodological suitability for assessing patient-related outcomes in individuals undergoing implant treatment, as confirmed by reliability and validity tests. These results indicate that the ITEKS is a reliable and valid instrument for assessing patient experience in implant dentistry.