Premium
Group 3 ITI Consensus Report: Patient‐reported outcome measures associated with implant dentistry
Author(s) -
Feine Jocelyne,
AbouAyash Samir,
Al Mardini Majd,
Santana Ronaldo Barcelllos,
BjelkeHoltermann Trine,
Bornstein Michael M.,
Braegger Urs,
Cao Olivia,
Cordaro Luca,
Eycken Didier,
Fillion Mathieu,
Gebran Georges,
HuynhBa Guy,
Joda Tim,
Levine Robert,
Mattheos Nikos,
Oates Thomas W.,
AbdUlSalam Hani,
Santosa Robert,
Shahdad Shakeel,
Storelli Stefano,
Sykaras Nikitas,
Treviño Santos Alejandro,
Stephanie Webersberger Ulrike,
Williams Mary Ann H.,
Wilson Thomas G.,
Wismeijer Daniel,
Wittneben JuliaGabriela,
Yao Coral Jie,
Zubiria Juan Pablo Villareal
Publication year - 2018
Publication title -
clinical oral implants research
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 2.407
H-Index - 161
eISSN - 1600-0501
pISSN - 0905-7161
DOI - 10.1111/clr.13299
Subject(s) - prom , medicine , dentistry , implant , dental prosthesis , patient satisfaction , oral hygiene , rehabilitation , prosthesis , quality of life (healthcare) , orthodontics , physical therapy , surgery , nursing , obstetrics
Objectives The aim of Working Group 3 was to focus on three topics that were assessed using patient‐reported outcome measures ( PROM s). 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. PROM s include ratings of satisfaction and oral health‐related quality of life ( QHRQ oL), 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. PROM s, such as patients’ satisfaction and QHRQ oL, should supplement other clinical parameters in our clinical definition of success.