TY - JOUR
T1 - Group 3 ITI consensus report
T2 - Patient-reported outcome measures associated with implant dentistry
AU - Feine, J.
AU - Abou-Ayash, S.
AU - Al Mardini, M.
AU - de Santana, R.B.
AU - Bjelke-Holtermann, T.
AU - Bornstein, M.M.
AU - Braegger, U.
AU - Cao, O.
AU - Cordaro, L.
AU - Eycken, D.
AU - Fillion, M.
AU - Gebran, G.
AU - Huynh-Ba, G.
AU - Joda, T.
AU - Levine, Robert
AU - Mattheos, N.
AU - Oates, T.W.
AU - Abd-Ul-Salam, H.
AU - Santosa, R.
AU - Shahdad, S.
AU - Storelli, S.
AU - Sykaras, N.
AU - Treviño Santos, A.
AU - Webersberger, U.S.
AU - Williams, M.A.H.
AU - Wilson, T.G.
AU - Wismeijer, D.
AU - Wittneben, J.G.
AU - Yao, C.J.
AU - Zubiria, J.P.V.
N1 - In special issue: Proceedings of the Sixth ITI Consensus Conference.
PY - 2018
Y1 - 2018
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.
U2 - 10.1111/clr.13299
DO - 10.1111/clr.13299
M3 - Review article
C2 - 30328187
SN - 0905-7161
VL - 29
SP - 270
EP - 275
JO - Clinical Oral Implants Research
JF - Clinical Oral Implants Research
IS - S16
ER -