Show simple item record

dc.contributor.authorFeine, J.
dc.contributor.authorAbou-Ayash, S.
dc.contributor.authorAl Mardini, M.
dc.date.accessioned2019-06-21T18:46:32Z
dc.date.available2019-06-21T18:46:32Z
dc.date.issued2018
dc.identifier.urihttps://www.scopus.com/inward/record.uri?eid=2-s2.0-85055034892&doi=10.1111%2fclr.13299&partnerID=40&md5=2833a5fe0f0e146225b4431cfc571d40
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/10713/9769
dc.description.abstractObjectives: 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. Copyright 2018 The Authors. Clinical Oral Implants Research Published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.en_US
dc.description.urihttps://dx.doi.org/10.1111/clr.13299en_US
dc.language.isoen-USen_US
dc.publisherJohn Wiley & Sons Ltd.en_US
dc.relation.ispartofClinical Oral Implants Research
dc.subjectclinical researchen_US
dc.subjectclinical trialsen_US
dc.subjectpatient-centered outcomesen_US
dc.subjectprosthodonticsen_US
dc.subjectsystematic reviewsen_US
dc.titleGroup 3 ITI Consensus Report: Patient-reported outcome measures associated with implant dentistryen_US
dc.typeArticleen_US
dc.identifier.doi10.1111/clr.13299
dc.identifier.pmid30328187


This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record