Purpose: No information is available on the perception of the quality of care in patients treated for periodontitis. The purpose of this article was to assess how periodontitis-affected patients perceive the quality of periodontal treatment (PT) and to measure the factors which may influence it. Materials and Methods: 306 subjects who completed PT were invited to participate. Questionnaires and visual analogic scales (VAS) evaluating perception of quality of care, symptoms, and oral health related quality of life (OHRQoL) were handed out. Oral and periodontal indicators were collected before and after treatment. The impact of different factors on perception of quality was assessed with a regression model. Results: Quality evaluation was high yet unrelated for both patients and clinicians (p = 0.983). Quality was negatively influenced by the number of residual oral infections (p 0.001), patient's age (p = 0.07) and presence of residual pain at completion of PT (p = 0.02). Professionalism, kindness of the staff and communication skills were the characteristics mostly appreciated. The OHRQoL was influenced by the number of residual teeth (p 0.001), increasing age of patients (p = 0.08), number of residual infections (p 0.01) and pain (p = 0.04). Conclusions: Patients' quality perception appeared to be influenced by clinical and emotional aspects. Oral care providers should be aware of the impact of non-clinical factors in patients' appreciation of quality of treatment. Keywords: oral health related quality of life, periodontitis, quality of care

Purpose: To evaluate the reliability of a conometric system for fixed retention of complete prostheses (CPs) on four implants after 5 years of function. Materials and methods: Twenty-five patients with a completely edentulous mandible received four implants supporting a CP. A total of 100 implants were immediately loaded with CPs on conometric abutments. A follow-up of 5 years was observed for each patient. Outcome measures were prosthesis and implant success, complications, probing pocket depth changes, marginal bleeding and plaque changes, and patient satisfaction. Results: One patient dropped-out. In total, 96 implants supporting the 24 CPs completed the follow-up examination at 5 years. No implant failed. Two framework fractures occurred after 4 and 5 years of function. No loss of retention was recorded for the CPs. Mucositis was recorded for two implants after 1 year of prostheses function for two patients, for one implant after 3 years and for two implants after 4 years in different patients and successfully treated with interceptive supportive therapy. No significant differences were found between Plaque Index (PI) at baseline and after 2 years (P = 1.0); similar findings were calculated between PI at baseline and after 5 years (P = 0.6) of function. At baseline, after 2 and after 5 years, respectively, 69%, 64% and 56% of implants showed a PI of 0; 31%, 36% and 44% of implants showed a PI between 1 and 3. Modify Bleeding Index (MBI) was not significantly different both between baseline and after 2 years of function (P = 1.0) and between baseline and 5 years of function (P = 0.5). At baseline, after 2 and after 5 years, respectively, 69%, 65% and 61% of implants showed a MBI of 0; 27%, 28% and 29% of implants showed a MBI of 1; and 4%, 7% and 10% of implants showed a MBI of 2. The mean probing pocket depth was 1.2 ± 0.4 mm at baseline, 1.2 ± 0.4 mm after 2 years and 1.4 ± 0.5 mm after 5 years of function. The differences were not statistically significant between baseline and 2 years (P = 1.0) and between baseline and 5 years (P = 0.1). From the patient satisfaction questionnaire, 85% percent of patients were satisfied from both aesthetic and functional points of view after 5 years of conometric prostheses function. Conclusions: The present implant-supported conometric retention system can be used to give fixed retention to a CP supported by four implants. An adequate metal framework should be provided to the definitive restoration in order to avoid fractures in the long term. Keywords: conometric retention, dental implants, edentulous mandible, fixed prosthesis Conflict of interest statement: No conflict of interest was declared by authors in the present study design and clinical application. No donation of free materials, prostheses or any other support was provided.