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.
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.
| Original language | English |
|---|---|
| Pages (from-to) | 224-240 |
| Journal | Clinical Oral Implants Research |
| Volume | 29 |
| Issue number | S16 |
| DOIs | |
| Publication status | Published - 2018 |