Loss of one or more teeth adversely affects oral function, phonetics, mastication, facial appearance, and psychosocial well-being (1). Beyond functional impairment, tooth loss accelerates alveolar bone resorption, reduces soft-tissue support, and contributes to premature facial aging through loss of lip support, decreased lower facial height, and collapse of perioral tissues (2). Consequently, contemporary dentistry has shifted from replacing missing teeth alone toward restoring overall facial harmony and improving patient quality of life. Dental implant therapy has become the preferred treatment for replacing missing teeth because of its high long-term survival, predictable osseointegration, and favorable functional and esthetic outcomes. Patient satisfaction following implant therapy is consistently high, although treatment cost remains a major obstacle to wider acceptance (3). The concept of facial rejuvenation has evolved considerably over the past two decades. Patients increasingly seek treatments that restore youthful facial contours while maintaining natural facial expressions. Aging is characterized by progressive loss of collagen, elastin, subcutaneous fat, and skeletal support, resulting in volume depletion, wrinkle formation, and altered facial proportions. Injectable dermal fillers, particularly hyaluronic acid–based fillers, have become one of the most frequently performed nonsurgical aesthetic procedures because they effectively restore facial volume with minimal recovery time, high patient acceptance, and a favorable safety profile. Most patients report substantial improvements in facial appearance, self-esteem, and quality of life following filler treatment (4).

Recent advances in aesthetic medicine have encouraged greater collaboration between prosthodontists, implantologists, oral and maxillofacial surgeons, dermatologists, and aesthetic physicians. Rather than viewing oral rehabilitation and facial aesthetics as separate disciplines, clinicians increasingly recognize that restoring facial esthetics requires managing both hard and soft tissues. Dental implants restore dentition and provide structural support, whereas dermal fillers compensate for age-related soft-tissue volume loss around the lips, nasolabial folds, marionette lines, and cheeks. The combined use of these therapies has the potential to improve smile aesthetics, facial symmetry, and overall facial harmony beyond what either treatment can achieve on its own (5). Patient satisfaction has become one of the most important outcome measures in implant dentistry and facial aesthetic practice. Contemporary healthcare increasingly emphasizes patient-reported outcome measures alongside traditional clinical success indicators. Previous systematic reviews have shown that patients undergoing implant-supported rehabilitation generally report improvements in mastication, speech, comfort, confidence, and social interactions. Nevertheless, patient expectations play a significant role in determining perceived treatment success, and unrealistic expectations may negatively influence satisfaction despite technically successful outcomes (6).

Similarly, studies evaluating facial fillers demonstrate consistently high levels of aesthetic satisfaction when treatment goals are appropriately discussed before intervention. Understanding patient motivations, expectations, and desired aesthetic outcomes is essential because satisfaction depends not only on technical accuracy but also on psychological, social, and cultural factors. Appropriate patient counseling before treatment has therefore become an integral component of comprehensive facial aesthetic practice (7). Despite increasing demand for implant dentistry and minimally invasive facial rejuvenation, access to these treatments remains unequal across different populations. Dental implants and dermal fillers are often considered elective procedures and are therefore rarely covered by health insurance systems. High treatment costs, limited insurance reimbursement, inadequate public awareness, fear of complications, and insufficient access to trained specialists represent important barriers to treatment acceptance. Evidence suggests that household income, educational attainment, and socioeconomic status significantly influence patients' willingness to undergo implant therapy, with treatment cost consistently identified as one of the strongest deterrents (8).

The increasing popularity of comprehensive facial rehabilitation has created a need to understand not only the clinical effectiveness of combined dental implant and filler therapy but also the socioeconomic factors influencing treatment accessibility. Although numerous studies have independently investigated dental implants and dermal fillers, relatively few have examined their integration within a multidisciplinary aesthetic treatment model while simultaneously evaluating patient satisfaction and socioeconomic barriers (9). Existing literature largely focuses on clinical techniques, implant survival, filler safety, or isolated patient satisfaction, leaving a gap regarding the broader determinants of access to comprehensive facial rejuvenation (10). Therefore, the present study aimed to assess the association between socioeconomic factors and access to combined dental implant therapy and dermal filler treatment, and to evaluate patient-reported satisfaction with functional rehabilitation, facial aesthetics, smile appearance, and overall treatment outcomes. The findings are expected to provide valuable evidence for clinicians and policymakers seeking to improve access to multidisciplinary aesthetic rehabilitation and optimize patient-centered care.

A cross-sectional analytical study was conducted at private dental implant and aesthetic medicine clinics to evaluate the association between socioeconomic factors and access to comprehensive facial rehabilitation involving dental implant therapy with or without adjunctive dermal filler treatment, and to assess patient-reported functional and facial aesthetic satisfaction. Adult patients (≥18 years) who had completed definitive dental implant rehabilitation at least three months before recruitment and had undergone either implant therapy alone or combined implant therapy with dermal fillers were consecutively recruited during routine follow-up visits. Written informed consent was obtained from all participants prior to enrollment. Patients undergoing active implant treatment, those who had received additional facial aesthetic procedures (e.g., botulinum toxin, thread lifts, or facial surgery), individuals with congenital craniofacial anomalies, severe facial trauma, psychiatric disorders affecting body image perception, or incomplete questionnaires were excluded. The sample size of 250 participants was calculated using the OpenEpi calculator based on a 95% confidence level, 5% margin of error, and 50% anticipated response distribution. A non-probability consecutive sampling technique was employed until the required sample size was achieved.

Data were collected using a structured, self-administered questionnaire developed from an extensive literature review and translated into Urdu using a forward–backward translation method. The questionnaire was pilot tested on 25 patients to ensure clarity and reliability, and pilot responses were excluded from the final analysis. It comprised six sections covering demographic characteristics, clinical information, socioeconomic status, barriers to treatment, patient satisfaction, and treatment outcomes. Satisfaction was assessed using a five-point Likert scale (1 = very dissatisfied to 5 = very satisfied), evaluating overall satisfaction, chewing ability, speech, comfort, smile aesthetics, facial appearance, lip support, self-confidence, social confidence, willingness to recommend treatment, and quality-of-life outcomes. Content validity was established through expert review, while internal consistency was confirmed using Cronbach's alpha (≥0.70).

The primary outcome was overall patient satisfaction, whereas secondary outcomes included functional rehabilitation, facial aesthetic satisfaction, self-confidence, smile aesthetics, oral health-related quality of life, and willingness to recommend treatment. Independent variables included demographic characteristics, socioeconomic status, treatment modality, treatment cost, health insurance coverage, awareness of facial rejuvenation procedures, and treatment accessibility. Data were analyzed using SPSS version 26.0. Continuous variables were summarized as mean ± standard deviation, while categorical variables were presented as frequencies and percentages. Group comparisons were performed using independent-samples t-tests or Mann–Whitney U tests for continuous variables and Chi-square or Fisher's exact tests for categorical variables. Satisfaction scores across socioeconomic categories were compared using one-way ANOVA or the Kruskal–Wallis test. Variables with p < 0.20 in univariate analyses, together with clinically relevant variables, were entered into a multivariable binary logistic regression model to identify independent predictors of higher treatment satisfaction. Adjusted odds ratios (AORs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated, and a two-tailed p < 0.05 was considered statistically significant.

A total of 250 participants completed the study questionnaire, yielding a response rate of 96.2%. Of these, 150 (60.0%) underwent dental implant therapy alone (Group I), while 100 (40.0%) received combined dental implant therapy with dermal filler treatment (Group II). The mean age of participants was 43.8 ± 10.7 years (range: 21–69 years). Females constituted 142 (56.8%) of the study population, whereas 108 (43.2%) were males. Most participants were married (68.0%) and possessed at least a university-level education (64.8%). Among participants receiving combined therapy, hyaluronic acid fillers were the most used (91.0%), with most patients requiring one treatment session (72.0%). The average duration since implant placement was 14.6 ± 8.3 months, as shown in Table 1.

Table 1. Demographic and socioeconomic characteristics of study participants (n = 250)

Table 2 presents the perceived barriers that limit participants' access to comprehensive facial rehabilitation involving dental implant therapy with or without adjunctive dermal filler treatment. High treatment cost was identified as the most frequently reported barrier, with 196 participants (78.4%) indicating that the overall expense of treatment significantly affected their decision to undergo comprehensive rehabilitation. The lack of insurance coverage was the second most common obstacle, reported by 181 participants (72.4%), reflecting the limited availability of reimbursement for elective dental implant and facial aesthetic procedures.

Table 2. Reported barriers to comprehensive facial rehabilitation (n = 250)

Participants treated with adjunctive dermal fillers reported significantly greater improvements in smile aesthetics, facial appearance, self-confidence, social confidence, and quality of life compared with participants receiving implant therapy alone (all p < 0.001). No statistically significant differences were observed in chewing ability or speech outcomes between the two groups as shown in table 3.

Table 3. Comparison of patient satisfaction between treatment groups

The mean overall satisfaction score among all participants was 4.23 ± 0.71 on a five-point Likert scale. Participants receiving combined dental implant therapy with dermal fillers demonstrated significantly higher satisfaction scores than those receiving implant therapy alone. Similarly, participants possessing health insurance reported significantly greater satisfaction compared with uninsured participants (4.49 ± 0.52 vs 4.16 ± 0.73; p = 0.011) as shown in table 4.

Table 4. Overall satisfaction according to socioeconomic status

Overall, 89.2% of participants reported improvement in oral function, while 84.8% experienced enhanced facial appearance. Increased self-confidence was reported by 82.4%, and 79.6% reported improved social interactions following treatment as shown in table 5.

Table 5. Patient-reported outcomes following treatment

After adjustment for potential confounders, participants receiving combined dental implant therapy with dermal fillers were 3.18 times more likely to report higher overall treatment satisfaction than those receiving implant therapy alone (AOR = 3.18, 95% CI: 1.74–5.82, p < 0.001). Higher household income, higher educational attainment, and health insurance coverage also remained independent predictors of greater satisfaction as shown in table 6.

Table 6. Independent predictors of higher treatment satisfaction

Posterior implant placement was more common than anterior implant placement in both treatment groups, accounting for 64.4% of all implant sites. Although a slightly greater proportion of patients receiving combined therapy had anterior implants (41.0%) compared with the implant-only group (32.0%), this difference did not reach statistical significance (p = 0.080) as shown in table 7.

Table 7. Clinical Characteristics of the Participants According to Treatment Modality

Table 8 demonstrates a strong association between socioeconomic status and access to comprehensive facial rehabilitation. Participants belonging to the high-income category were significantly more likely to receive combined dental implant therapy with dermal fillers than participants from lower-income households (63.2% vs. 36.8%; p < 0.001). Conversely, most low-income participants (82.9%) underwent implant therapy alone, suggesting that financial limitations substantially influenced treatment selection.

Table 8. Association Between Socioeconomic Status and Receiving Combined Therapy

Gender-based subgroup analysis revealed statistically significant differences in patient satisfaction (Table 9). Female participants reported significantly greater overall treatment satisfaction than males (4.31 ± 0.69 vs. 4.11 ± 0.70; p = 0.018). Satisfaction regarding facial appearance was likewise significantly higher among female participants (4.42 ± 0.67) than among males (4.05 ± 0.81; p = 0.004). Similarly, female participants demonstrated higher self-confidence scores following treatment (4.39 ± 0.61) compared with male participants (4.10 ± 0.73; p = 0.012). These findings suggest that female patients may perceive greater psychosocial and aesthetic benefits following comprehensive facial rehabilitation, although both genders reported generally high levels of satisfaction as shown in table 9.

Table 9. Gender-wise Comparison of Satisfaction Scores

Among participants who underwent adjunctive dermal filler therapy, improvement of smile aesthetics emerged as the most frequently cited motivation (86.0%), followed by the desire to achieve a younger facial appearance (79.0%). Professional recommendation also played an important role, with 72.0% of participants reporting that their decision was influenced by their dentist and 61.0% by an aesthetic medicine practitioner. Improvement in social confidence motivated nearly two-thirds (65.0%) of patients, whereas social media and recommendations from family or friends exerted comparatively less influence (42.0% and 34.0%, respectively). These findings emphasize that clinical advice and patient-centered aesthetic expectations are stronger determinants of treatment acceptance than external social influences.

Table 10. Factors Influencing Patients' Decision to Undergo Dermal Filler Therapy (n = 100)

Pearson correlation analysis demonstrated strong positive relationships between overall treatment satisfaction and patient-reported outcome measures (Table 11). Overall satisfaction exhibited a strong correlation with improvements in smile aesthetics (r = 0.71; p < 0.001) and facial appearance (r = 0.76; p < 0.001). Even stronger associations were observed for self-confidence (r = 0.79; p < 0.001) and overall quality of life (r = 0.82; p < 0.001).

Table 11. Pearson Correlation Between Overall Satisfaction and Treatment Outcomes

Participants receiving combined dental implant therapy with dermal fillers demonstrated significantly greater willingness to recommend treatment to others than those receiving implant therapy alone (p < 0.001). An overwhelming majority (91.0%) of patients in the combined therapy group indicated that they would recommend the treatment, compared with 64.0% of participants treated with implants alone. Only 1.0% of patients receiving comprehensive facial rehabilitation remained uncertain about recommending treatment, whereas uncertainty was reported by 8.0% of participants in the implant-only group. These findings reflect the high level of patient acceptance and perceived value associated with multidisciplinary facial rehabilitation.

Table 12. Willingness to Recommend Treatment According to Treatment Modality

The present study evaluated the influence of socioeconomic factors on access to comprehensive facial rehabilitation involving dental implant therapy with or without adjunctive dermal filler treatment while simultaneously assessing patient-reported satisfaction with functional, aesthetic, and psychosocial outcomes. The findings demonstrated that participants receiving combined dental implant therapy and dermal fillers reported significantly greater satisfaction regarding facial appearance, smile aesthetics, self-confidence, social confidence, and overall quality of life than those undergoing implant therapy alone. In contrast, functional outcomes such as chewing ability and speech improved substantially in both treatment groups, suggesting that while dental implants effectively restore oral function, adjunctive dermal fillers primarily enhance facial aesthetics and psychosocial well-being. These findings support the contemporary concept of comprehensive facial rehabilitation, which emphasizes restoration of both hard and soft tissues to achieve optimal functional and aesthetic outcomes (11,12). Dental implant therapy has become the choice of treatment for replacing missing teeth because of its excellent long-term survival, predictable osseointegration, and ability to restore mastication, phonetics, and oral health-related quality of life. Recent systematic reviews have consistently reported implant survival rates exceeding 95% over long-term follow-up, accompanied by significant improvements in patient satisfaction and oral function (13,14). However, successful implant rehabilitation does not necessarily restore age-related soft tissue volume loss or improve facial harmony, particularly in patients with marked perioral volume deficiency. Consequently, increasing attention has been directed toward integrating minimally invasive facial aesthetic procedures with implant dentistry to optimize overall facial rehabilitation. The significantly higher satisfaction scores observed among participants receiving combined implant therapy and dermal fillers are consistent with the growing body of evidence supporting multidisciplinary facial rehabilitation. Dermal fillers, particularly hyaluronic acid-based formulations, restore facial volume, improve lip support, reduce nasolabial folds, and enhance smile aesthetics while preserving natural facial expressions (15). Previous investigations have demonstrated that combining restorative dental procedures with facial aesthetic interventions results in greater improvements in facial attractiveness, self-esteem, and perceived quality of life than dental rehabilitation alone (16).

The present findings further reinforce this concept by demonstrating superior patient-reported outcomes among individuals receiving adjunctive dermal filler treatment. Although overall satisfaction differed significantly between treatment groups, no statistically significant differences were observed regarding chewing ability or speech. This finding is clinically important because it suggests that restoration of oral function is primarily attributable to implant-supported prosthetic rehabilitation rather than adjunctive aesthetic procedures. Similar observations have been reported by Montero et al., who demonstrated that implant-supported rehabilitation substantially improves mastication, comfort, and phonetics regardless of additional cosmetic interventions (17). Conversely, improvements in facial appearance, self-confidence, and social interactions appear to be largely influenced by the enhancement of facial soft tissues, supporting the complementary role of dermal fillers in comprehensive facial rehabilitation. Another notable finding of the present study was the strong positive correlation between overall treatment satisfaction and improvements in smile aesthetics, facial appearance, self-confidence, and quality of life. Contemporary implant dentistry increasingly emphasizes patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) because traditional clinical indicators alone do not fully reflect treatment success from the patient's perspective (18). Recent consensus statements have recommended routine incorporation of PROMs into implant dentistry to better evaluate patient experiences, expectations, and quality of life following treatment (19). The findings of the present study are consistent with these recommendations and further support the integration of psychosocial outcome measures into routine clinical assessment.

The present study identified socioeconomic status as one of the strongest determinants influencing access to comprehensive facial rehabilitation. Participants with higher household income were significantly more likely to undergo combined dental implant therapy and dermal filler treatment, whereas individuals from lower-income households predominantly received implant therapy alone. These findings indicate that economic disparities continue to play a central role in determining access to advanced restorative and aesthetic dental procedures (20). These findings closely align with recent systematic reviews reporting that affordability remains the most important factor affecting acceptance of implant dentistry worldwide (21). First, it evaluated both functional and aesthetic outcomes using patient-reported outcome measures, providing a comprehensive assessment of treatment success beyond conventional clinical parameters. Second, inclusion of participants receiving either implant therapy alone or combined implant and dermal filler treatment enabled direct comparison between treatment modalities. Third, the study simultaneously investigated socioeconomic determinants, including household income, educational attainment, and insurance status, thereby addressing an important gap in the existing literature. Finally, the use of multivariable logistic regression strengthened the findings by identifying independent predictors of higher treatment satisfaction while controlling for potential confounding variables.

Despite its strengths, the present study has several limitations. The cross-sectional design prevents the establishment of causal relationships between socioeconomic factors and patient satisfaction. Participants were recruited using non-probability consecutive sampling from private clinics in Karachi, which may limit the generalizability of the findings to public healthcare facilities or other geographic regions. Patient satisfaction and quality-of-life outcomes were assessed using self-reported questionnaires, making the results susceptible to recall bias, reporting bias, and individual expectations. Future research should include prospective longitudinal and multicenter studies involving larger and more diverse populations to evaluate the long-term effectiveness and sustainability of combined dental implant and dermal filler therapy. Randomized controlled trials comparing different facial rejuvenation protocols would provide stronger evidence regarding treatment efficacy. Future studies should also incorporate objective facial aesthetic assessment tools, three-dimensional facial imaging, digital smile design, and standardized oral health-related quality-of-life instruments to complement patient-reported outcomes.

Combined dental implant therapy and dermal fillers were associated with higher patient-reported satisfaction regarding functional rehabilitation and facial aesthetics. Financial and socioeconomic barriers remain major determinants of treatment accessibility. Improving affordability and awareness may facilitate wider adoption of multidisciplinary facial rehabilitation.

1. Beresescu FG, Mucenic SG, Bors A. Edentulism and Systemic Disease: A Comprehensive Review of Oral-Systemic Health Interactions. Dentures: Present State-of-the-Art and Future Perspectives. 2025 Jul 24.
2. Saluja SS, Fabi SG. A holistic approach to antiaging as an adjunct to antiaging procedures: a review of the literature. Dermatologic Surgery. 2017 Apr 1;43(4):475-84. http://doi:10.1097/DSS.0000000000001027. PMID: 28359075.
3. Korfage A, Raghoebar GM, Meijer HJ, Vissink A. Patients' expectations of oral implants: a systematic review. European journal of oral implantology. 2018 Aug 14;11(Suppl. 1):S65-76. PMID: 30109300.
4. Faris BM. The use of facial fillers in clinical practice: the level of patient satisfaction and an overview of common clinical complications. Actas dermo-sifiliograficas. 2024 May 1;115(5):458-65. http://doi:10.1016/j.ad.2023.10.008. Epub 2023 Oct 20. PMID: 37865230.
5. Kauke-Navarro M, Knoedler L, Baecher H, Sherwani K, Knoedler S, Allam O, Diatta F, Alperovich M, Safi AF. A systematic review of implant materials for facial reconstructive and aesthetic surgery. Frontiers in Surgery. 2025 Mar 28; 12:1548597. http://doi:10.3389/fsurg.2025.1548597. PMID: 40225117; PMCID: PMC11985522.
6. Korfage A, Raghoebar GM, Meijer HJ, Vissink A. Patients' expectations of oral implants: a systematic review. European journal of oral implantology. 2018 Aug 14;11(Suppl. 1):S65-76. PMID: 30109300.
7. Faris BM. The use of facial fillers in clinical practice: the level of patient satisfaction and an overview of common clinical complications. Actas dermo-sifiliograficas. 2024 May 1;115(5):458-65. http://doi:10.1016/j.ad.2023.10.008. Epub 2023 Oct 20. PMID: 37865230.
8. QURESHI AW, Sunny A, Khan AE, Idris SH, Babar SW. PATIENT-DRIVEN LIMITATIONS IN DENTAL IMPLANT THERAPY: A CROSS-SECTIONAL STUDY OF ITS BARRIERS. Pakistan Journal of Physiology. 2025 Sep 30;21(3):22-5.
9. Cassisi JE, Gofman S, Proctor M, Becker S. Aesthetic Medicine and Aesthetic Health Psychology: Toward an Integrative Framework for Patient-Centered Care. Journal of Aesthetic Medicine. 2026 Jan 19;2(1):2.
10. Alaviyan AH. Advanced Minimally Invasive Techniques in Facial Rejuvenation: A Comprehensive Review. World Journal of Plastic Surgery. 2025:3-8.
11. Joda T, Gallucci GO, Wismeijer D, Zitzmann NU. Augmented and virtual reality in dental medicine: A systematic review. Computers in biology and medicine. 2019 May 1;108:93-100. http://doi:10.1016/j.compbiomed.2019.03.012. Epub 2019 Mar 15. PMID: 31003184.
12. Coachman C, Calamita M. Digital Smile Design: A Tool for Treatment Planning and Communication in Esthetic Dentistry. Quintessence of Dental Technology (QDT). 2012 Jan 1;35.
13. Howe MS, Keys W, Richards D. Long-term (10-year) dental implant survival: A systematic review and sensitivity meta-analysis. Journal of dentistry. 2019 May 1;84:9-21. http://doi: 10.1016/j.jdent.2019.03.008. Epub 2019 Mar 20. PMID: 30904559.
14. Srinivasan M, Meyer S, Mombelli A, Müller F. Dental implants in the elderly population: a systematic review and meta‐analysis. Clinical oral implants research. 2017 Aug;28(8):920-30. http://doi:10.1111/clr.12898. Epub 2016 Jun 7. PMID: 27273468.
15. Lupo MP. Hyaluronic acid fillers in facial rejuvenation. In Seminars in cutaneous medicine and surgery 2006 Sep (Vol. 25, No. 3, pp. 122-126). http://doi:10.1016/j.sder.2006.06.011. PMID: 17055390.
16. Cohen JL, Rivkin A, Dayan S, Shamban A, Werschler WP, Teller CF, Kaminer MS, Sykes JM, Weinkle SH, Garcia JK. Multimodal facial aesthetic treatment on the appearance of aging, social confidence, and psychological well-being: HARMONY study. Aesthetic Surgery Journal. 2022 Feb 1;42(2):NP115-24.http://doi:10.1093/asj/sjab114. PMID: 33751048; PMCID: PMC8756087.
17. Manfredini M, Pellegrini M, Rigoni M, Veronesi V, Beretta M, Maiorana C, Poli PP. Oral health-related quality of life in implant-supported rehabilitations: a prospective single-center observational cohort study. BMC Oral Health. 2024 May 4;24(1):531. http://doi:10.1186/s12903-024-04265-y. PMID: 38704566; PMCID: PMC11069144.
18. Feine J, Abou‐Ayash S, Al Mardini M, de Santana RB, Bjelke‐Holtermann T, Bornstein MM, Braegger U, Cao O, Cordaro L, Eycken D, Fillion M. Group 3 ITI consensus report: Patient‐reported outcome measures associated with implant dentistry. Clinical oral implants research. 2018 Oct;29:270-5. http://doi:10.1111/clr.13299. PMID: 30328187.
19. Tonetti MS, Sanz M, Avila‐Ortiz G, Berglundh T, Cairo F, Derks J, Figuero E, Graziani F, Guerra F, Heitz‐Mayfield L, Jung RE. Relevant domains, core outcome sets, and measurements for implant dentistry clinical trials: The Implant Dentistry Core Outcome Set and Measurement (ID‐COSM) international consensus report. Clinical Oral Implants Research. 2023 May;34:4-21. http://doi:10.1111/clr.14074. PMID: 37232121
20. Northridge ME, Kumar A, Kaur R. Disparities in access to oral health care. Annual review of public health. 2020 Apr 1;41:513-35. PMID: 31900100; PMCID: PMC7125002.
21. Huang Y, Levin L. Barriers Related to Dental Implant Treatment Acceptance by Patients. International Journal of Oral & Maxillofacial Implants. 2022 Nov 1;37(6). http://doi:10.11607/jomi.9643. PMID: 36450027 .