Patient‐reported outcome measures focusing on aesthetics of implant‐ and tooth‐supported fixed dental prostheses: A systematic review and meta‐analysis. (17th October 2018)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Wittneben, Julia‐Gabriela; Wismeijer, Daniel; Brägger, Urs; Joda, Tim; Abou‐Ayash, Samir
• Other Names: Wismeijer Daniel guestEditor.; Chen Stephen T. guestEditor.
• Is Part Of: Clinical oral implants research. Volume 29(2018)Supplement 16
• Page Start: 224
• Page End: 240
• Publication Date: 2018-10-17
• Subjects: esthetic -- FDP -- implant -- implant‐supported crown -- Mucosa -- patient‐centered outcomes -- patient‐reported outcomes -- PROM -- PROMS -- VAS; Dental implants -- Research -- Periodicals; 617.69
• DOI: 10.1111/clr.13295
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 0905-7161

Abstract

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.