scholarly journals Aesthetic Parameters and Patient-Perspective Tools for Maxillary Anterior Single Implants’ Assessment

2021 ◽  
Vol 2021 ◽  
pp. 1-9
Author(s):  
Kelvin I. Afrashtehfar ◽  
Mansour K. A. Assery ◽  
S. Ross Bryant
Keyword(s):  
Patient Reported Outcome Measures ◽  
Patient Reported Outcome ◽  
Self Assessment ◽  
Mesh Terms ◽  
Single Tooth ◽  
Patient Reported ◽  
Implant Crown ◽  
Implant Dentistry ◽  
The Aesthetic ◽  
Heterogeneity Bias

Background. This review aimed to concisely describe the current aesthetic objective indices for a single-implant maxillary anterior crown. The secondary aim was to propose introducing a unified, standardized questionnaire for adequately collecting patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) in implant dentistry. Materials and Methods. A literature review was conducted using both EMBASE/Ovid and MEDLINE/PubMed databases by combining keywords and Emtree/Mesh terms related to “Esthetics,” “Self-Assessment or Surveys and Questionnaires,” and “Single-Tooth Dental Implants.” Results. The most meaningful aesthetic objective indices for single implants in the literature are the Pink Esthetic Score (PES), the Papilla Presence Index (PPI), Peri‐Implant and Crown Index (PICI), PES/White Esthetic Score (PES/WES), the Implant Crown Aesthetic Index (ICAI), and a modified version of the ICAI (mod-ICAI) index. Clearly, PES/WES is still the most widely accepted tool. It is encouraging to observe that there is an increasing tendency in recent years to report PROMs more frequently in the implant dentistry literature. We proposed the implementation of a unified, standardized questionnaire using a self-administered visual analogue scale (VAS) scoring system, which evaluates overall satisfaction, comfort, tooth appearance, gingival appearance, function, and hygiene complexity. This tool should be validated in the oral implantology research context for its regular implementation or further development. Conclusions. Conducting qualitative studies among dental implant patients who received few implants or single-tooth implant reconstructions in the aesthetic zone may help dental researchers understand better how to efficiently develop and validate a quantitative instrument. This standard tool would reduce heterogeneity bias by providing comparable data between studies.

scholarly journals A Radiographic and Clinical Comparison of Immediate vs. Early Loading (4 Weeks) of Implants with a New Thermo-Chemically Treated Surface: A Randomized Clinical Trial

2021 ◽  
Vol 18 (3) ◽  
pp. 1223
Author(s):  
Matteo Albertini ◽  
Federico Herrero-Climent ◽  
Carmen María Díaz-Castro ◽  
Jose Nart ◽  
Ana Fernández-Palacín ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Data ◽  
Patient Reported Outcome Measures ◽  
Patient Reported Outcome ◽  
Early Loading ◽  
Patient Reported ◽  
Bone Level ◽  
Marginal Bone Level ◽  
Implant Dentistry ◽  
Edentulous Patients ◽  
Group B

Background: Implant dentistry has evolved over time, resulting in better treatment outcomes for both patients and clinicians. The aim of this trial was to test whether the immediate loading of implants with a platform-switching design influences the marginal bone level, compared to four-week loading, after one year of follow-up. Moreover, a comparison of clinical data regarding implant survival, implant stability, and patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) was conducted. Methods: Klockner® VEGA® implants with a ContacTi® surface were placed in partially edentulous patients in the posterior areas. Group A received an immediately loaded prosthesis (one week) and Group B received an early-loaded prosthesis (four weeks). All abutments were placed at the time of surgery. Radiographic and clinical data were recorded. Results: Twenty-one patients were treated (35 implants). No implants were lost during the study. The final marginal bone level did not show differences between groups. The bone loss at 12 months at the implant level was 0.00 mm for both groups (median). The final implant quotient stability (ISQ) values did not differ between groups (median 73 and 70.25), nor did the other clinical parameters or PROMs. Conclusions: The results suggest that neither of the loading protocols with the implants used influenced the marginal bone level—not the osseointegration rate, clinical conditions, or PROMs.

Identification of Factors Predictive for Patient Reported Outcomes in the Prospective Australian Breast Device Registry

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jessy Hansen ◽  
Susannah Ahern ◽  
Pragya Gartoulla ◽  
Ying Khu ◽  
Elisabeth Elder ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Risk Adjustment ◽  
Breast Implants ◽  
Patient Reported Outcome Measures ◽  
Patient Reported Outcome ◽  
Logistic Regression Models ◽  
Multivariate Risk ◽  
Patient Reported ◽  
The Aesthetic ◽  
One Year

Abstract Background Patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) are an important tool for evaluating outcomes following breast device procedures, and are used by breast device registries. PROMs can assist with device monitoring through benchmarked outcomes, but need to account for demographic and clinical factors which may affect PROMs responses. Objectives This study aimed to develop appropriate risk-adjustment models for the benchmarking of PROMs data to accurately track device outcomes and identify outliers in an equitable manner. Methods Data for this study were obtained from the Australian Breast Device Registry, which consists of a large prospective cohort of patients with primary breast implants. The five-question BREAST-Q implant surveillance module was used to assess PROMs at one-year following implant insertion. Logistic regression models were used to evaluate associations between demographic and clinical characteristics and PROMs separately by implant indication. Final multivariate risk-adjustment models were built sequentially assessing the independent significant association of these variables. Results 2,221 reconstructive and 12,045 aesthetic primary breast implants with complete one-year follow-up PROMs were included in the study. Indication for operation (post-cancer, risk-reduction, developmental deformity) was included in the final model for all reconstructive implant PROMs. Site type (private or public hospital) was included in the final breast reconstruction model for look, rippling and tightness. Age at operation was included in the reconstruction models for rippling and tightness and in the aesthetic models for look, rippling, pain and tightness. Conclusions These multivariate models will be useful for equitable benchmarking of breast devices by PROMs to help track device performance.

Functional/Aesthetic Measures of Patient Satisfaction After Rhinoplasty: A Review

2019 ◽  
Vol 39 (10) ◽  
pp. 1057-1062 ◽  
Author(s):  
Hong Xiao ◽  
Yanan Zhao ◽  
Liu Liu ◽  
Minqin Xiao ◽  
Wei Qiu ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Patient Satisfaction ◽  
Patient Reported Outcome Measures ◽  
Patient Reported Outcome ◽  
Ease Of Use ◽  
Self Assessment ◽  
Outcomes Evaluation ◽  
Assess Patient Satisfaction ◽  
Patient Reported ◽  
The Face ◽  
Pubmed Search

Abstract Multiple patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) are available to assess patient satisfaction after rhinoplasty. These self-assessment measures can be divided into 3 categories: measures for functional outcomes, aesthetic outcomes, and both. Although Barone et al have discussed this classification, a recently developed scale was not featured. We performed a PubMed search for publications in English that described patient satisfaction post-rhinoplasty, utilizing PROMs that facilitate both functional and aesthetic self-assessment. PROMs, including the Rhinoplasty Outcomes Evaluation, the Functional Rhinoplasty Outcome Inventory 17, the Rhinoplasty Health Inventory and Nasal Outcomes scale, the FACE-Q Rhinoplasty module, and the Standardized Cosmesis and Health Nasal Outcomes Survey, were reviewed and critically appraised in terms of their content, ease of use, and analysis parameters. This review highlights the benefit of using multi-functional PROMs after rhinoplasty instead of single-purpose PROMs and enables surgeons and researchers to choose the most appropriate measure for their purpose.

scholarly journals Understanding the lived experiences of dental patients with a single-tooth implant in the upper front region of the mouth: A qualitative study protocol (Preprint)

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kelvin Afrashtehfar ◽  
S. Ross Bryant
Keyword(s):  
Qualitative Study ◽  
Patient Reported Outcome Measures ◽  
Patient Reported Outcome ◽  
Computer Assisted ◽  
Research Approach ◽  
Subjective Experiences ◽  
Dental Patients ◽  
Single Tooth ◽  
Patient Reported ◽  
Front Region

UNSTRUCTURED Assessment of the subjective experiences of individuals with maxillary anterior (i.e., the upper front region of the mouth) single-tooth implants is limited mainly to quantitative measurements on satisfaction with appearance. Interestingly, there is unexplained variability in the relationship between satisfaction and appearance. This will be the first qualitative study on this sector of the population to explore and have a better understanding of their satisfaction with appearance and function, as well as any other patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) that could be identified. A qualitative research design using interpretative phenomenology analysis (IPA) will provide an adaptable inductive research approach. The participants will be recruited to obtain consent documents, photographs, digital intraoral scans, and self-administered questionnaires, from them. The transcribed verbatim data from the participants’ audio-recorded in-depth, semi-structured one-to-one interviews will be managed, coded, and analysed thematically aided by a Computer-Assisted Qualitative Data Analysis Software. The IPA will consider the COnsolidated criteria for REporting Qualitative (COREQ) guidelines when applicable. The analysis of this study will elucidate the aspects, and the value of these, that influence participant satisfaction at different dental implant treatment stages.

scholarly journals Group 3 ITI Consensus Report: Patient‐reported outcome measures associated with implant dentistry

2018 ◽  
Vol 29 (S16) ◽  
pp. 270-275 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jocelyne Feine ◽  
Samir Abou‐Ayash ◽  
Majd Al Mardini ◽  
Ronaldo Barcelllos Santana ◽  
Trine Bjelke‐Holtermann ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Outcome Measures ◽  
Patient Reported Outcome Measures ◽  
Patient Reported Outcome ◽  
Patient Reported ◽  
Group 3 ◽  
Implant Dentistry ◽  
Consensus Report
Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document