Julia-Gabriela Wittneben1,2, Daniel Wismeijer3, Urs Brägger1, Tim Joda1, Samir Abou-Ayash1. 1. Department of Reconstructive Dentistry and Gerodontology, School of Dental Medicine, University of Bern, Bern, Switzerland. 2. Department of Restorative Dentistry and Biomaterials Sciences, Harvard School of Dental Medicine, Boston, MA. 3. Department of Oral Implantology and Prosthetic Dentistry, ACTA, University of Amsterdam and VU University, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to summarize the existing evidence on patient-reported aesthetic outcome measures (PROMs) of implant-supported, relative to tooth-supported fixed dental prostheses. MATERIAL AND METHODS: In April 2017, two reviewers independently searched the Medline (PubMed), EMBASE, and Cochrane electronic databases, focusing on studies including patient-reported aesthetic outcomes of implant- and tooth-supported fixed dental prostheses (FDPs). Human studies with a mean follow-up period of at least 1 year, a minimum of ten patients, and English, German, or French publication were included. For the comparison of subgroups, random-effects meta-regression for aggregate-level data was used. RESULTS: The systematic search for implant-supported prostheses focusing on patient-reported outcomes identified 2,675 titles, which were screened by two independent authors. Fifty full-text articles were analyzed, and finally, 16 publications (including 19 relevant study cohorts) were included. For tooth-supported prostheses, no studies could be included. A total of 816 implant-supported reconstructions were analyzed by patients. Overall aesthetic evaluation by the patients' visual analogue scale (VAS) rating was high in implant-supported FDPs (median: 90.3; min-max: 80.0-94.0) and the surrounding mucosa (median: 84.7; min-max: 73.0-92.0). Individual restorative materials, implant neck design (i.e., tissue or bone level type implants), and the use of a fixed provisional had no effect on patients' ratings of the definitive implant-supported FDPs. CONCLUSIONS: Aesthetics is an important patient-reported measure, which lacks in standardized methods; however, patients' satisfaction was high for implant- supported FDPs and the surrounding mucosa.
OBJECTIVES: The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to summarize the existing evidence on patient-reported aesthetic outcome measures (PROMs) of implant-supported, relative to tooth-supported fixed dental prostheses. MATERIAL AND METHODS: In April 2017, two reviewers independently searched the Medline (PubMed), EMBASE, and Cochrane electronic databases, focusing on studies including patient-reported aesthetic outcomes of implant- and tooth-supported fixed dental prostheses (FDPs). Human studies with a mean follow-up period of at least 1 year, a minimum of ten patients, and English, German, or French publication were included. For the comparison of subgroups, random-effects meta-regression for aggregate-level data was used. RESULTS: The systematic search for implant-supported prostheses focusing on patient-reported outcomes identified 2,675 titles, which were screened by two independent authors. Fifty full-text articles were analyzed, and finally, 16 publications (including 19 relevant study cohorts) were included. For tooth-supported prostheses, no studies could be included. A total of 816 implant-supported reconstructions were analyzed by patients. Overall aesthetic evaluation by the patients' visual analogue scale (VAS) rating was high in implant-supported FDPs (median: 90.3; min-max: 80.0-94.0) and the surrounding mucosa (median: 84.7; min-max: 73.0-92.0). Individual restorative materials, implant neck design (i.e., tissue or bone level type implants), and the use of a fixed provisional had no effect on patients' ratings of the definitive implant-supported FDPs. CONCLUSIONS: Aesthetics is an important patient-reported measure, which lacks in standardized methods; however, patients' satisfaction was high for implant- supported FDPs and the surrounding mucosa.
Authors: Robert Stünkel; Alexander-Nicolai Zeller; Thomas Bohne; Florian Böhrnsen; Edris Wedi; David Raschke; Philipp Kauffmann Journal: Int J Implant Dent Date: 2022-10-06
Authors: Franz J Strauss; Marina Siegenthaler; Christoph H F Hämmerle; Irena Sailer; Ronald E Jung; Daniel S Thoma Journal: Clin Oral Implants Res Date: 2022-05-29 Impact factor: 5.021
Authors: Muhammad F Walji; Heiko Spallek; Krishna Kumar Kookal; Jane Barrow; Britta Magnuson; Tamanna Tiwari; Udochukwu Oyoyo; Michael Brandt; Brian J Howe; Gary C Anderson; Joel M White; Elsbeth Kalenderian Journal: J Am Med Inform Assoc Date: 2022-03-15 Impact factor: 4.497
Authors: Ho-Yan Duong; Andrea Roccuzzo; Alexandra Stähli; Giovanni E Salvi; Niklaus P Lang; Anton Sculean Journal: Periodontol 2000 Date: 2022-02 Impact factor: 12.239