Patient’s perception of timing concepts in implant dentistry: A systematic review
Research output: Contribution to journal › Review › Research › peer-review
Standard
Patient’s perception of timing concepts in implant dentistry : A systematic review. / Gotfredsen, Klaus; Hosseini, Mandana; Rimborg, Susie; Özhayat, Esben.
In: Clinical Oral Implants Research, Vol. 32, No. S21, 2021, p. 67-84.Research output: Contribution to journal › Review › Research › peer-review
Harvard
APA
Vancouver
Author
Bibtex
}
RIS
TY - JOUR
T1 - Patient’s perception of timing concepts in implant dentistry
T2 - The 6th EAO Consensus Conference
AU - Gotfredsen, Klaus
AU - Hosseini, Mandana
AU - Rimborg, Susie
AU - Özhayat, Esben
N1 - Publisher Copyright: © 2021 John Wiley & Sons A/S. Published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd
PY - 2021
Y1 - 2021
N2 - Protocols for implant dentistry, most frequently include periods until healing of the extraction sockets and osseointegration of the implant. Deductional thinking imply that patients would prefer if treatment time in implant dentistry were reduced. Aim: What is the patient perception of immediate or early implant placement or loading in comparison with traditional, delayed placement, and/or loading assessed by patient-reported outcome measures, as evidenced in randomized controlled clinical trials or prospective controlled studies?. Material and methods: A systematic review was performed following the PRISMA guidelines with a literature search up to June 30. All hits were imported into Rayyan online software and analyzed by two authors for eligibility. Cochrane RoB2.0 and Newcastle-Ottawa Scale were used to evaluate risk of bias in the individual studies. Results: Of the initially 1439 articles, 76 underwent full-text analysis and finally 40 articles, representing 35 cohort studies, were included. The quality evaluation demonstrated some concerns among most of the studies. Conclusion: a) There is no strong evidence to support that the time for implant placement or loading of implant-supported single or short-span reconstructions or overdentures influence patients´ discomfort, satisfaction with function or esthetics or overall satisfaction with the implant treatment. b) There is some evidence that studies including edentulous patients rehabilitated with implant-supported full-arch FDPs demonstrate more satisfied patients with immediate than for the early or delayed loaded implant reconstructions after short time, but the difference is not clear one year after treatment.
AB - Protocols for implant dentistry, most frequently include periods until healing of the extraction sockets and osseointegration of the implant. Deductional thinking imply that patients would prefer if treatment time in implant dentistry were reduced. Aim: What is the patient perception of immediate or early implant placement or loading in comparison with traditional, delayed placement, and/or loading assessed by patient-reported outcome measures, as evidenced in randomized controlled clinical trials or prospective controlled studies?. Material and methods: A systematic review was performed following the PRISMA guidelines with a literature search up to June 30. All hits were imported into Rayyan online software and analyzed by two authors for eligibility. Cochrane RoB2.0 and Newcastle-Ottawa Scale were used to evaluate risk of bias in the individual studies. Results: Of the initially 1439 articles, 76 underwent full-text analysis and finally 40 articles, representing 35 cohort studies, were included. The quality evaluation demonstrated some concerns among most of the studies. Conclusion: a) There is no strong evidence to support that the time for implant placement or loading of implant-supported single or short-span reconstructions or overdentures influence patients´ discomfort, satisfaction with function or esthetics or overall satisfaction with the implant treatment. b) There is some evidence that studies including edentulous patients rehabilitated with implant-supported full-arch FDPs demonstrate more satisfied patients with immediate than for the early or delayed loaded implant reconstructions after short time, but the difference is not clear one year after treatment.
KW - immediate loading
KW - immediate placement
KW - patient-reported outcome measures
U2 - 10.1111/clr.13861
DO - 10.1111/clr.13861
M3 - Review
C2 - 34642992
AN - SCOPUS:85116905358
VL - 32
SP - 67
EP - 84
JO - Clinical Oral Implants Research
JF - Clinical Oral Implants Research
SN - 0905-7161
IS - S21
Y2 - 10 February 2021 through 12 February 2021
ER -
ID: 285521769