Patient-Reported Outcome Measures (PROMs) for Two Implant Placement Techniques in Sinus Region (Bone Graft versus Computer-Aided Implant Surgery): A Randomized Prospective Trial

Abstract

Purpose: To assess patient-reported outcomes measures (PROMs) for two implant placement techniques in cases of sinus bone atrophy (bone graft surgery (BGS) versus computer-aided implant surgery (CAIS)), after surgery and one year later, and to evaluate the clinical success of both treatments. Methods: Sixty patients with bone atrophy in the posterior maxilla and in need of implant placement were randomly assigned to two groups, and in accordance with the case report form (CRF), 30 were treated with BGS and 30 with CAIS. Immediately after treatment and one year later, PROMs were assessed, and the clinical success of both treatments was evaluated. Results: No significant differences were found between BGS and CAIS with regard to the following: loss of implants (p = 492); patient recommendation (p = 210); duration of surgery (p = 987); pain on the intervention day (p = 512); pain in the week after intervention (p = 299); and complications in the stage of surgery (p = 1.00). Similarly, at one year, no differences were found with regard to the following: pain around implant (p = 481); infection of implants (p = 491); abnormal radiographic imaging (p = 226); occurrence of undesirable events (p = 1.00); loss of one of the implants (p = 1.00); plaque detection (p = 1.00); bleeding on probing (p = 236); and presence of keratinized mucosa (p = 226). However, a significant difference was found among BGS and CAIS with regard to the number of consultations (p = 0001); number of implants placed (p = 033); and treatment difficulty (p = 0369). Significant differences were found for peri-implantitis (p = 0481) and radiology of craterization (p = 020) in clinical examination at the first year. Conclusion: Treatment difficulty and number of consultations were higher for BGS than for CAIS, as well as peri-implantitis and bone craterization at one year, indicating significant differences between the two treatments. However, there were no statistically significant differences between BGS and CAIS regarding the other PROMs, at placement and after one year.

Patient’s perception of recovery after maxillary sinus floor augmentation with autogenous bone graft compared with composite grafts: a single-blinded randomized controlled trial

“…Patient´s willingness to undergo same type of surgery is essential for future decision-making process. Previous studies have reported that most of the patients indicated willingness to repeat the surgical intervention if needed and would recommend the treatment to friends and relatives following MSFA with autogenous bone graft or a bone substitute alone [ 16 , 18 , 20 ]. These results are in accordance with the present study.…”

“…Patient´s perception of recovery and assessment of OHRQoL in conjunction with MSFA are seldomly reported [15][16][17][18][19][20][21]. Previous studies have indicated that patient´s perception of recovery is influenced by patientrelated predictors, incidence and severity of complications, presurgical expectations, past dental experiences as well as psychological and psychosocial factors [22][23][24][25][26].…”

Patient's perception of recovery after sinus membrane elevation and blood coagulum compared with 1:1 mixture of autogenous bone graft and deproteinized porcine bone mineral. Secondary outcomes from a single‐blinded randomized controlled trial

“…Patient‐reported outcome measures and OHRQoL reflect psychosocial parameters related to patient's perception of the surgical intervention and recovery including pain, swelling, bruising, inability to eat and sleep, physical appearance, working, and social interaction as well as their self‐esteem and satisfaction with their oral health. Patient's perception of recovery after MSFA have previously been assessed in few studies (Alayan & Ivanovski, 2018; Almahrous et al, 2020; Farina et al, 2018; Mardinger et al, 2009; Younes et al, 2019). Mild‐to‐moderate pain and inability to participate in daily activities for 2 and 3 days have been reported after MSFA with 1:1 mixture of autogenous bone graft harvested from the buccal antrostomy and bone substitute as evaluated by questionnaire, five‐point Likert‐type scale, and VAS (Alayan & Ivanovski, 2018).…”

“…Mild-to-moderate pain and inability to participate in daily activities for 2 and 3 days have been reported after MSFA with 1:1 mixture of autogenous bone graft harvested from the buccal antrostomy and bone substitute as evaluated by questionnaire, five-point Likert-type scale, and VAS (Alayan & Ivanovski, 2018). A weak of mild to moderate pain has been reported by most of the patients after MSFA with an undescribed grafting material as evaluated by four-point Likert-type rating scale and verbal rating scale (Almahrous et al, 2020). All patients were either satisfied or very TA B L E 5 Questionnaire assessing social and working isolation, physical appearance, and quality of life alterations, at 1 week satisfied with the treatment outcome and 92% would recommend the treatment, after 1 year (Almahrous et al, 2020).…”

“…A weak of mild to moderate pain has been reported by most of the patients after MSFA with an undescribed grafting material as evaluated by four-point Likert-type rating scale and verbal rating scale (Almahrous et al, 2020). All patients were either satisfied or very TA B L E 5 Questionnaire assessing social and working isolation, physical appearance, and quality of life alterations, at 1 week satisfied with the treatment outcome and 92% would recommend the treatment, after 1 year (Almahrous et al, 2020). Pain has been reported to be most pronounced on the first postoperative day and significantly declining to presurgical values on day 7 after MSFA with a bone substitute alone as evaluated by questionnaire and VAS (Farina et al, 2018).…”