Jocelyne Feine1, Samir Abou-Ayash2, Majd Al Mardini3,4, Ronaldo Barcelllos de Santana2, Trine Bjelke-Holtermann5, Michael M Bornstein6, Urs Braegger2, Olivia Cao6, Luca Cordaro7, Didier Eycken8, Mathieu Fillion9, Georges Gebran2, Guy Huynh-Ba10, Tim Joda11,2, Robert Levine12, Nikos Mattheos6, Thomas W Oates13, Hani Abd-Ul-Salam14,15,16, Robert Santosa17, Shakeel Shahdad18, Stefano Storelli19, Nikitas Sykaras20, Alejandro Treviño Santos21, Ulrike Stephanie Webersberger22, Mary Ann H Williams23, Thomas G Wilson24, Daniel Wismeijer25, Julia-Gabriela Wittneben2,26, Coral Jie Yao6, Juan Pablo Villareal Zubiria27. 1. Oral Health and Society, Faculty of Dentistry, McGill University, Montreal, QC, Canada. 2. Department of Reconstructive Dentistry and Gerodontology, School of Dental Medicine, University of Bern, Bern, Switzerland. 3. Department of Dentistry and Maxillofacial Prosthetics, Princess Margaret Hospital, Toronto, ON, Canada. 4. Private Practice, Almardini Prosthodontics, Hamilton, ON, Canada. 5. Private Practice Kjeller Tannhelse, Kjeller, Norway. 6. Implant Dentistry, Faculty of Dentistry, The University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong, China. 7. Department of Periodontology and Prosthodontics, Eastman Dental Hospital, University Policlinic Umberto I, Rome, Italy. 8. Private Practice, Brussels, Belgium. 9. Private Practice, Dom'implant Formation, Clermont-Ferrand, France. 10. Periodontics, The University of Texas Health Science Center at San Antonio - UTHSCSA, San Antonio, Texas. 11. Department of Reconstructive Dentistry, University Center for Dental Medicine Basel UZB, University of Basel, Basel, Switzerland. 12. Pennsylvania Center for Dental Implants & Periodontics, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. 13. Department of Advanced Oral Sciences & Therapeutics, School of Dentistry, University of Maryland, Baltimore, Maryland. 14. Faculty of Dentistry, Oral & Maxillofacial Surgery, University of Sharjah, Sharjah, United Arab Emirates. 15. Faculty of Dentistry, McGill University, Montreal, QC, Canada. 16. McGill University Continuing Dental Education for the Middle East & North Africa, Montreal, QC, Canada. 17. Private practice, Macquarie Central Prosthodontics, Sydney, NSW, Australia. 18. Department of Restorative Dentistry, Barts and The London School of Medicine and Dentistry, Queen Mary University of London, London, UK. 19. Department of Biomedical, Surgical and Dental Sciences, University of Milan, Milan, Italy. 20. Department of Removable Prosthodontics, Dental School, National and Kapodistrian University of Athens, Athens, Greece. 21. Postdoctoral and Research Division, Faculty of Dentistry, National Autonomous University of Mexico, UNAM, Mexico City, Mexico. 22. Clinical Department of Restorative and Prosthetic Dentistry, Innsbruck Medical University, Austria, Innsbruck, Austria. 23. Health Science & Human Services Library, University of Maryland, Baltimore, Maryland. 24. Private Practice of Periodontics Dallas, Dallas, Texas. 25. Department of Oral Implantology and Prosthetic Dentistry, ACTA (Academic Center for Dentistry Amsterdam Free University), Amsterdam, The Netherlands. 26. Department of Restorative Dentistry and Biomaterials Sciences, Harvard School of Dental Medicine, Boston, Massachusetts. 27. Universidad Inter Continental, Mexico City, Mexico.
Abstract
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.
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 edentulouspatients, (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. Edentulouspatients 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.
Authors: Andrea Mendoza-Geng; Kelly Gonzales-Medina; Jonathan Meza-Mauricio; Francisco Wilker Mustafa Gomes Muniz; Andrea Vergara-Buenaventura Journal: Clin Oral Investig Date: 2022-03-28 Impact factor: 3.573
Authors: Fabio Rossi; Lorenzo Tuci; Lorenzo Ferraioli; Emanuele Ricci; Andreea Suerica; Daniele Botticelli; Gerardo Pellegrino; Pietro Felice Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2021-04-06 Impact factor: 3.390
Authors: Karl-Ludwig Ackermann; Thomas Barth; Claudio Cacaci; Steffen Kistler; Markus Schlee; Michael Stiller Journal: Int J Implant Dent Date: 2020-04-08
Authors: Andrea López-Pacheco; David Soto-Peñaloza; Mayra Gómez; David Peñarrocha-Oltra; Marco Antonio Alarcón Journal: Int J Implant Dent Date: 2021-02-22