76 Chapter 4 Patients with an implant-supported obturator prosthesis had a significantly better MAI score (18.66 ± 1.37) than patients with conventional prostheses (22.36 ± 3.16; p = .015). Thereby, the subdomain of ‘chewing difficulty’ showed better results in patients with an implant-supported obturator in both the OHIPEDENT (p = .001; Table 2) and OFS (p = .007; Table 3). The subdomain of ‘eating comfort’ of the OHIP-EDENT also showed a significantly better eating comfort in patients with an implant-supported prosthesis (p = .026). Likewise, the domain of ‘oral functioning’ of the LORQv3-NL was better in patients with an implantsupported obturator prosthesis (p = .030; Table 4). The difficulties in swallowing solids are noteworthy. The results were worse in patients wearing conventional obturator prostheses in comparison to those with implant-supported devices (LORQv3-NL; p = .000). Voice modifications were more obvious in patients of Group 2 (OFS; p = .034). Post hoc power calculation We computed the sample size given α = .05, power = 0.8, and the expected effect size for two independent means (matched pairs) with the MAI score outcomes of this study. The mean MAI score was 18.66 (± 3.16) for the patients with implant-supported obturator prostheses and 22.36 (± 1.37) for the patients with conventional obturators. Therefore, the required sample size was estimated at 16 subjects (eight per group).
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MTk4NDMw