Group 3 ITI Consensus Report: Patient-reported outcome measures associated with implant dentistry.

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.

Effects of a cementing technique in addition to luting agent on the uniaxial retention force of a single-tooth implant-supported restoration: an in vitro study.

PURPOSE: Excess residual cement around the implant margin has been shown to be detrimental to the peri-implant tissue. This in vitro study examines the retentive strengths of two different cementing techniques and two different luting agents on a machined titanium abutment and solid screw implants. The amount of reduction of excess cement weight between the two cementation techniques was assessed. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Forty gold castings were fabricated for 4.1 mm in diameter and 10 mm in length solid-screw dental implants paired with 5.5-mm machined titanium abutments. Twenty implants received a provisional cement, and 20 implants received a definitive cement. Each group was further divided into two groups. In the control group, cement was applied and the castings seated over the implant-abutment assembly. The excess cement was then removed. In the study group, a "practice abutment" was used to express excess cement prior to cementation. The weight of the implant-casting assembly was measured and the residual weight of cement was calculated. The samples were then stored for 24 hours at 100% humidity prior to tensile strength testing. RESULTS: Statistical analysis revealed significant differences in tensile strength across the groups. Further Tukey tests showed no significant difference in tensile strength between the practice abutment technique and the conventional technique for both definitive and provisional cements. There was a significant reduction in residual cement weight, irrespective of the type of cement, when the practice abutment was used prior to cementation. CONCLUSIONS: Cementation of implant restorations on a machined abutment using the practice abutment technique and definitive cement may provide similar uniaxial retention force and significantly reduced residual cement weight compared to the conventional technique of cement removal.