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.

BackgroundVery few studies on the impact of implant therapy on Oral Health Related Quality of Life (OHRQoL) in partially edentulous patients have been published.AimThis study aimed at analysing the improvement of OHRQoL of patients who underwent dental implant treatment using the “functional”, “psychosocial” and “pain and discomfort” categories of the Geriatric Oral Health Assessment Index (GOHAI).MethodsWithin a prospective cohort of patients rehabilitated with Straumann dental implants, the OHRQoL of 176 patients (104 women and 72 men) was assessed using the GOHAI questionnaire, at two different times, before and after implant placement. The degree of oral treatment was categorised into three classes: “Single Tooth Implant” (n = 77), “Fixed Partial Denture” (n = 75), “Fixed or Retained Full Prostheses” (n = 24). The participants’ characteristics (gender, age, tobacco habits, periodontal treatment, time between both evaluations) were assessed.ResultsBefore treatment, the GOHAI score was lower for participants with fewer teeth (F = 19, P < 0.001). After treatment, no difference was observed between participants; significant improvements were observed in the GOHAI scores obtained (repeated measures, analysis, (F = 177, P < 0.001)) for each of the GOHAI fields studied (functional, psychosocial and pain & discomfort), regardless of the degree of treatment. The best improvement was observed in patients who needed complete treatment (P < 0.001). The presence of preliminary periodontal treatment, tobacco habits, age and gender of the participants did not have a significant impact on OHRQoL. Changing the time between the two evaluations (before and after treatment) had no impact on the changes in the GOHAI score.ConclusionsImplants enhanced the OHRQoL of participants that needed oral treatment.

No abstract

Background : Tissue level implants help to put implant abutment connections in a shallow gingival position. Here the rough implant surface may be more protected from bacterial contamination.Aim/Hypothesis : This cohort study aims to evaluate bone level around two new shapes of tissue level implants after the osseointegration period.Material and Methods : A cohort group of 62 subjects n = 102 implants were systematically included during a 9 month period. Peri-implant bone level was assessed on a peri-apical radiograph after a 2 to 6 month osseointegration period. Implants were separated into two groups.Group 1-implants with a 1.5 mm height smooth surface collar ( n = 28) and group 2-implants with a 2.5 mm height smooth surface collar ( n = 74). Each periapical radiograph was re-scaled through cross multiplication based on the collar length measure, and the bone level position was measured mesially and distally.Results : Out of 62 treated patients, all were available for the follow-up. Peri-implant bone level change were respectively (+0.36 ± 0.79 mm, Group 1 vs + 0.94 ± 1.08 mm, Group 2 P < 0.001). Respective implant survival rates were 100 percent and 97.3 percent. Conclusion and ClinicalImplications : These preliminary results confirm that this new shape of Tissue Level Implant contributes to having a peri-implant bone level above the rough to smooth surface. Further studies may evaluate the long term outcome and determine ability to prevent peri-implantitis.