Objectives: This study evaluated the satisfaction of the patients using the oral health impact profile-14 (OHIP-14) and VAS scale after 5-8 years of the treatment. Materials and Methods: A total of healthy 185 implants were selected according to the dental implant health scale accepted by International Congress of Oral Implantologists Consensus (ICOI) and 112 fixed implant- supported prosthesis evaluated for this study. The patient-reported effect was prospectively obtained by measuring oral health impact (OHIP-14) and VAS skale with a a follow-up period ranging from 5 to 8 years. Distribution of variables was checked using 0ne-Sample test. SPSS 22.0 programme was used for the analyses. Results: The patients were defined high satisfaction results after 5-8 years by implant placement. Mean VAS-score for the satisfaction percentage with implant-supported restorations was 87.80 % (SD ± 13.79). Mean OHIP score was 2.82 (SD ± 5.44). The results of OHIP 14 and VAS scores resulted that patient satisfaction with fixed implant supported prosthesis was high in all patients. Conclusions: The fixed implant-supported restorations served high satisfaction results according to the OHIP 14 and VAS results. These restorations has a positive effect to the quality of life for oral health (OHRQoL). Key Words: Quality of life; dental implant; denture ; partial; fixed

Aim: This study evaluates the digital accuracy of posterior implant scans and contralateral molar tooth scans obtained with three different intraoral scanners. Materials and Methods: Using a transfer analog, a Frasaco maxillary model was prepared with a Megagen scan body positioned in the left maxillary molar region. An experienced operator (n = 10) performed all scans with an industrial optical reference scanner and intraoral scanners (Medit i700, TRIOS 3, and TRIOS 5). Scan accuracy was assessed using Geomagic Control X software based on 3D trueness and precision accuracy analysis. One-way ANOVA and Tukey’s HSD tests were applied to identify statistically significant differences in trueness and precision (α = 0.05). Results: In the implant region, TRIOS 5 demonstrated significantly different 3D trueness results and was more successful than TRIOS 3. Medit i700 yielded results comparable to those of TRIOS 3 and TRIOS 5 (p = 0.011). TRIOS 5 exhibited less successful 3D trueness results than the other scanners in the molar region (p = 0.001). No 3D precision differences were observed among intraoral scanners in the implant region (p = 0.561). Medit i700 presented the most favorable precision results in the molar region (p = 0.01). Conclusions: TRIOS 5 supports high impression accuracy and passive fit, while Medit i700 offers more reliable accuracy for contralateral molar scans, which can affect the digital occlusal record.