The aim was to adapt the Orofacial Esthetic Scale (OES) and to test psychometric properties of the Albanian language version in the cultural environment of the Republic of Kosovo. The OES questionnaire was translated from the original English version according to the accepted techniques. The reliability (internal consistency), and validity (construct, convergent and discriminative) were tested in 169 subjects, test-retest in 61 dental students (DS), and responsiveness in 51 prosthodontic patients with treatment needs (PPTN). The corrected item correlation coefficients of OES-ALB ranged from 0.686 to 0.909. The inter-item correlation coefficient ranged between 0.572 and 0.919. The Cronbach’s alpha was 0.961 and IIC 0.758. Test- retest was confirmed by good ICCs and by no significant differences of the OES scores through the period of 14 days without any orofacial changes (p > 0.05). Construct validity was proved by the presence of one-factor composition that assumed 79.079 % of the variance. Convergent validity showed significant correlation between one general question about satisfaction with orofacial esthetics and the OES summary score, as well as between the sum of the 3 OHIP-ALB49 questions related to orofacial aesthetics and the OES summary score. Discriminative validity was confirmed with statistically significant differences between DS, prosthodontic patients without treatment need and PPTN (p < 0.01). Responsiveness was confirmed by a significant increase of OES scores after PPTN patients received new fixed partial or removable dentures (P < 0.001). The results proved excellent psychometric properties of the OES-ALB questionnaire in the Republic of Kosovo.

Background and Objectives: Due to a lack of long-term clinical studies that would clarify whether the insertion of three mini-implants (MDIs) can be as successful treatment as the insertion of four MDIs for the retention of mandibular overdentures (ODs), this 5-year prospective cohort study was set up. Materials and Methods: Participants (n = 83) randomly received either four or three MDIs and a mandibular OD. Clinical examinations were performed at the baseline, as well as after one, three, and five years, respectively. A total of 73 participants (38 in the four-MDI and 35 in the three-MDI groups) partook in the study. The marginal bone level change, success and survival rates, and prosthodontic maintenance were assessed. Results: Repeated measures showed that the mean peri-implant bone loss increased progressively at a small amount over five years in both groups (four-MDI group = −0.36 ± 0.74; three-MDI group = −0.33 ± 0.27 mm; p < 0.05). However, an ANCOVA revealed no significant effects of the group (no significant difference between the three- and the four-MDI groups; F = 0.085; p = 0.771), gender (F = 0.023; p = 0.88), or covariate age (F = 1.95; p = 0.167) on the dependent variable: the 5-year MBL change. The success rate (together with successful survival) was 93.8% in the four-MDI group and 91.7% in the three-MDI group. The log-rank (Mantel–Cox) test revealed no significant differences between them (X² = 0.373; p = 0.541). Conclusions: In patients with narrow ridges, the insertion of three MDIs in the mandible for overdenture retention can be equally as successful as the insertion of four MDIs.