Format

Send to

Choose Destination
Clin Oral Implants Res. 2018 Oct;29 Suppl 16:270-275. doi: 10.1111/clr.13299.

Group 3 ITI Consensus Report: Patient-reported outcome measures associated with implant dentistry.

Author information

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.

KEYWORDS:

clinical research; clinical trials; patient-centered outcomes; prosthodontics; systematic reviews

PMID:
30328187
DOI:
10.1111/clr.13299
[Indexed for MEDLINE]

Supplemental Content

Full text links

Icon for Wiley
Loading ...
Support Center