Patient’s perception of timing concepts in implant dentistry: A systematic review

Abstract

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.

SafetyCrown: a patient-centered, fully digital concept for immediate implant restoration following the one-abutment/one-time concept—a pilot case series of a new treatment concept

“…According to the results of this pilot study, we plan an RCT with 20 patients for each group. There is a highly limited number of RCTs with PROMs as primary outcome [ 12 ] especially for single tooth reconstructions. Some of the recommendations of the EAO consensus statement [ 13 ] investigating PROMs of timing concepts in implant dentistry will be assessed in the upcoming RCT.…”

Patient‐reported outcomes for bone regenerative procedures

“…Another systematic review by Wittneben et al 42 examined patient-reported outcome measures focusing on the esthetics of implant-supported fixed dental prostheses and found corresponding results. They included 16 studies and only 3 of the included studies used PROMs as an equated outcome variable [43][44][45] Thus, although a number of international consensus reports and systematic reviews recommend including PROMs 19,46,47 this is seldom done as a primary outcome variable. Furthermore, studies including PROMs are missing concerning important questions about whether GBR should be performed staged or simultaneously with implant treatment.…”

“…However, the appropriateness of the OHIP questionnaires for surgeries such as GBR or single tooth implants in young patients can be questioned. 18,19 Thus, the OHIP questionnaire was developed in the early 90s based on 535 statements from 64 selected patients of which 55% were wearing dentures and reliability was evaluated in a cohort of 122 patients aged 60 and older. Thus, the OHIP questionnaire may be applicable for older patients missing a great number of teeth, but for young patients with a high number of remaining teeth the appropriateness, acceptability, and interpretability are dubious.…”

Impact of timing of dental implant placement and loading: Summary and consensus statements of group 1—The 6th EAO Consensus Conference 2021

“…However, there is no clarity if there is robust evidence supporting this assumption. In the present systematic review (Gotfredsen et al, 2021), the search strategy initially resulted in 1439 publications, but only 35 studies fulfilled the inclusion criteria and were eligible to be included in the descriptive analyses to answer the following questions set by the working group 1 during the Consensus Conference.…”