TY - JOUR
T1 - Group 3 ITI Consensus Report
T2 - Patient-reported outcome measures associated with implant dentistry
AU - Feine, Jocelyne
AU - Abou-Ayash, Samir
AU - Al Mardini, Majd
AU - de Santana, Ronaldo Barcelllos
AU - Bjelke-Holtermann, Trine
AU - Bornstein, Michael M.
AU - Braegger, Urs
AU - Cao, Olivia
AU - Cordaro, Luca
AU - Eycken, Didier
AU - Fillion, Mathieu
AU - Gebran, Georges
AU - Huynh-Ba, Guy
AU - Joda, Tim
AU - Levine, Robert
AU - Mattheos, Nikos
AU - Oates, Thomas W.
AU - Abd-Ul-Salam, Hani
AU - Santosa, Robert
AU - Shahdad, Shakeel
AU - Storelli, Stefano
AU - Sykaras, Nikitas
AU - Treviño Santos, Alejandro
AU - Stephanie Webersberger, Ulrike
AU - Williams, Mary Ann H.
AU - Wilson, Thomas G.
AU - Wismeijer, Daniel
AU - Wittneben, Julia Gabriela
AU - Yao, Coral Jie
AU - Zubiria, Juan Pablo Villareal
N1 - Funding Information:
*This statement was supported by: one RCT, three prospective cohort
Funding Information:
*This statement was supported by: two RCTs, five prospective cohort
Publisher Copyright:
© 2018 The Authors. Clinical Oral Implants Research Published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.
PY - 2018/10
Y1 - 2018/10
N2 - Objectives: The aim of Working Group 3 was to focus on three topics that were assessed using patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs). These topics included the following: (a) the aesthetics of tooth and implant-supported fixed dental prostheses focusing on partially edentulous patients, (b) a comparison of fixed and removable implant-retained prostheses for edentulous populations, and (c) immediate versus early/conventional loading of immediately placed implants in partially edentate patients. PROMs include ratings of satisfaction and oral health-related quality of life (QHRQoL), as well as other indicators, that is, pain, general health-related quality of life (e.g., SF-36). Materials and methods: The Consensus Conference Group 3 participants discussed the findings of the three systematic review manuscripts. Following comprehensive discussions, participants developed consensus statements and recommendations that were then discussed in larger plenary sessions. Following this, any necessary modifications were made and approved. Results: Patients were very satisfied with the aesthetics of implant-supported fixed dental prostheses and the surrounding mucosa. Implant neck design, restorative material, or use of a provisional restoration did not influence patients’ ratings. Edentulous patients highly rate both removable and fixed implant-supported prostheses. However, they rate their ability to maintain their oral hygiene significantly higher with the removable prosthesis. Both immediate provisionalization and conventional loading receive positive patient-reported outcomes. Conclusions: Patient-reported outcome measures should be gathered in every clinical study in which the outcomes of oral rehabilitation with dental implants are investigated. PROMs, such as patients’ satisfaction and QHRQoL, should supplement other clinical parameters in our clinical definition of success.
AB - Objectives: The aim of Working Group 3 was to focus on three topics that were assessed using patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs). These topics included the following: (a) the aesthetics of tooth and implant-supported fixed dental prostheses focusing on partially edentulous patients, (b) a comparison of fixed and removable implant-retained prostheses for edentulous populations, and (c) immediate versus early/conventional loading of immediately placed implants in partially edentate patients. PROMs include ratings of satisfaction and oral health-related quality of life (QHRQoL), as well as other indicators, that is, pain, general health-related quality of life (e.g., SF-36). Materials and methods: The Consensus Conference Group 3 participants discussed the findings of the three systematic review manuscripts. Following comprehensive discussions, participants developed consensus statements and recommendations that were then discussed in larger plenary sessions. Following this, any necessary modifications were made and approved. Results: Patients were very satisfied with the aesthetics of implant-supported fixed dental prostheses and the surrounding mucosa. Implant neck design, restorative material, or use of a provisional restoration did not influence patients’ ratings. Edentulous patients highly rate both removable and fixed implant-supported prostheses. However, they rate their ability to maintain their oral hygiene significantly higher with the removable prosthesis. Both immediate provisionalization and conventional loading receive positive patient-reported outcomes. Conclusions: Patient-reported outcome measures should be gathered in every clinical study in which the outcomes of oral rehabilitation with dental implants are investigated. PROMs, such as patients’ satisfaction and QHRQoL, should supplement other clinical parameters in our clinical definition of success.
KW - clinical research
KW - clinical trials
KW - patient-centered outcomes
KW - prosthodontics
KW - systematic reviews
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85055034892&partnerID=8YFLogxK
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85055034892&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1111/clr.13299
DO - 10.1111/clr.13299
M3 - Review article
C2 - 30328187
AN - SCOPUS:85055034892
VL - 29
SP - 270
EP - 275
JO - Clinical Oral Implants Research
JF - Clinical Oral Implants Research
SN - 0905-7161
ER -