Dental Patient-reported Outcomes Research Articles

Mandibular overdenture retained by four one-piece titanium-zirconium mini implants: a 2-year RCT on patient-reported outcomes

AimThe positive impact of implant interventions on dental patient-reported outcomes is an essential parameter of treatment effectiveness. This study assessed the 2-year changes in patient satisfaction and oral health-related quality of life (OHRQoL) of edentulous patients treated with a four mini implant mandibular overdenture (IOD) MethodsThe study was planned as a 2 × 2 factorial randomized clinical trial that tested two surgical approaches (flapped or flapless) and two loading protocols (immediate and delayed) using a titanium-zirconium mini implant (Straumann Mini Implant System®) and a PEEK retentive system (Straumann® Optiloc® Retentive System). Outcome measures (OHIP-Edent scores and the McGill Denture Satisfaction questionnaire) were assessed before treatment and at the 3-, 6-, 12-, and 24-month follow-ups. The Friedman test and multiple regression using Generalized Estimating Equations (GEE) were used for data analysis, considering the per-protocol (PP) and intention-to-treat (ITT) approaches ResultsSeventy-four patients were randomized to the study groups. No implant failure occurred during the study period. Marked improvement in all post-treatment periods compared to baseline were observed for the two outcomes. No significant effect of patient's gender, age, and surgical protocol on the study outcomes. The effect of treatment provision was significant for the two outcomes in the PP and ITT approaches (p<0.001). A barely significant positive effect of the immediate loading was observed for OHIP-Edent in the PP approach (p=0.020) ConclusionIOD treatment significantly improved patient-reported outcomes measures, with sustained benefits over the two years of overdenture use, and can be considered a promising treatment option in for the edentulous mandible.

DENTAL PATIENT-REPORTED OUTCOMES IN GERIATRIC DENTISTRY : A call for clinical translation

As the proportion of older adults in the world population increases, there is an increasing need to provide adequate dental care for this very heterogeneous group of individuals. The relationship between oral and systemic health, the impact of medication on oral health, and the influence of accessibility to dental care and other social and environmental factors shape the provision of dental care for older adults more than in children, younger, and middle-aged adults.However, while dental care for older adults is shaped by these factors and is often different from the care for other adults, what matters to older dental patients does not differ from what matters to dental patients in general. The four dimensions of oral health-related quality of life (OHRQoL)–Oral Function, Orofacial Pain, Orofacial Appearance, and Psychosocial Impact–capture dental patients’ suffering from oral disorders. OHRQoL questionnaires can be used to assess this impact and to achieve results that are compatible with adults in general. More than in other age groups, cognitive impairments or dementia limit the usefulness of questionnaires or interviews for oral health impact assessment. In these situations, family members or caregivers can assess the patient's oral health impact, and oral health care providers need to rely more on physical oral health characteristics for clinical decision-making than in other dental patients. While the tools to measure oral health impact change, the targets for dental care stay the same. Prevention and reduction of functional, painful, aesthetical, and broader psychosocial impact related to oral disorders are the central tasks for geriatric dentistry as they are for dentistry in general.The aim of the manuscript is to highlight the importance of patient-reported outcome measures in geriatric dentistry, addressing challenges and opportunities for their application.

THE USE OF DENTAL PATIENT-REPORTED OUTCOMES AMONG COMPARATIVE OBSERVATIONAL STUDIES IN ORTHODONTICS: A METHODOLOGICAL STUDY

To identify and summarize the presence and characteristics of dental patient-reported outcomes (dPROs) and dental patient-reported outcome measures (dPROMs) within comparative observational studies published in 5 leading orthodontic journals. Electronic searching was performed to identify intervention (therapeutic or preventive) related comparative observational studies published in selected journals between 2015 and 2021. Two authors extracted the characteristics of each included study independently and in duplicate and summarized the dPROs and dPROMs used in these studies. All dPROs were classified into 2 general types (oral health-related quality of life [OHRQoL] and others), while dPROMs were divided into 3 categories (single-item questionnaires, generic multiple-item questionnaires, and specific multiple-item questionnaires). In addition, dPROMs were examined, if they evaluated the 4 dimensions of OHRQoL (oral function, orofacial pain, orofacial appearance, and psychosocial impact). A total of 683 observational studies were eligible and included of which 117 (17.1%) used dPROs and dPROMs. Seven different dPROs (OHRQoL, patients' satisfaction with treatment, preferences, concerns, compliance, duration, and unwanted events) and 33 different dPROMs (including 8 single-item questionnaires, 11 generic multiple-item questionnaires, and 14 specific multiple-item questionnaires) were identified in these studies. OHRQoL was the most commonly used dPRO (92/117, 78.6%), while Oral Health Impact Profile 14 (OHIP-14) was the most frequently used dPROM (20/92, 21.7%). In terms of study design, cross-sectional studies had the highest proportion of dPRO usage (62/148, 41.9%), followed by cohort studies (63/505, 12.5%) and case-control studies (1/30, 3.3%). Only one-sixth of comparative observational studies published in leading orthodontic journals could reflect patients' perspectives. Observational studies in orthodontics need to provide more patient-important information through the use of dPROs and dPROMs.

GLOSSARY FOR DENTAL PATIENT-CENTERED OUTCOMES

Dental patient-centered outcomes can improve the relevance of clinical study results to dental patients and generate evidence to optimize health outcomes for dental patients. Dental patient-reported outcomes (dPROs) are of great importance to patient-centered dental care. They can be used to evaluate the health outcomes of an individual patient about the impact of oral diseases and treatment, and to assess the quality of oral health care delivery for a health care entity. dPROs are measured with dental patient-reported outcome measures (dPROMs). dPROMs should be validated and tested before wider dissemination and application to ensure that they can accurately capture the intended dPROs. Evidence suggests inadequate dPRO usage among dental trials, as well as potential flaws in some existing dPROMs. This Glossary presents a collection of main terms in dental patient-centered outcomes to help clinicians and researchers read and understand patient-centered clinical studies in dentistry.

Core Outcome Sets and Why We Should Embrace Them.

Clinical research aims to enhance the quality of life of our patients and improve the cost-effectiveness of therapeutic interventions. To assess the efficacy and effectiveness of an intervention, clinical researchers employ a variety of outcome measures, which fall under true, surrogate, or composite outcomes categories. Concerning outcome measures, two questions arise: (1) How relevant are these outcomes to our stakeholders (patients, providers, and policymakers)? (2) How accurately do these measures assess the change in the quality of life of our patients after an intervention? The solution to the first question lies in the development of core outcome sets (COS) based on input from stakeholders. To appropriately address the latter question, it is of paramount importance to incorporate dental patient-reported outcome measures (dPROMs) in clinical trials.1 Therefore, developing COS that include dPROMs for a particular intervention is critical for addressing the above questions and elevating the level of clinical research in the dental field.

Treatment effect of implant-supported fixed complete dentures and implant overdentures on patient-reported outcomes: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

To analyze the effect of implant treatment in edentulous patients rehabilitated with implant-supported fixed complete dentures (IFCDs) or implant overdentures (IODs) on dental patient-reported outcomes (dPROs). In January 2022, Medline, Embase, CINAHL, Cochrane Library, PubMed Central, Web of Science, and ClinicalTrials.gov were screened for prospective clinical studies on completely edentulous patients treated with IFCDs and/or IODs, reporting pre-treatment and follow-up dPROs. Hedges' g effect sizes (ES) with corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CI) were calculated. Afterward, meta-analyses were conducted using random effect models. A total number of 1608 records was initially identified. Of those, 28 studies reporting dPROs from 1457 patients were finally included. The applied dental patient-reported outcome measures (dPROMs) included several versions of the Oral Health Impact Profile (OHIP) or specific items assessing satisfaction with Visual Analogue Scales (VAS). The overall ES was large for rehabilitation with IFCDs (1.68 [CI: 1.15, 2.20]) and IODs (1.26 [CI: 0.99, 1.52]) with no significant difference (p = .165) between the two. Denture stability was the only factor rated significantly higher for IFCDs (ES difference: 2.37 [CI: 0.21, 4.54]; p = .032). Subgroup analyses revealed moderately higher ES for IODs on two implants relative to one implant (ES difference: 0.73 [CI: 0.34, 1.12]; p < .001). There is a strong positive effect of implant treatment in edentulous patients, independent of the type of prosthetic rehabilitation. In patients seeking high stability, IFCDs may be preferable. In mandibular IODs on a single implant, there was a significantly positive effect of an additional implant on dPROs.

THE CONTENTS, METHODS, AND ASSESSMENT OF EVIDENCE-BASED DENTISTRY EDUCATION: A SCOPING REVIEW.

With evidence-based dentistry (EBD) having a far-reaching influence on oral healthcare, dental educators worldwide have made joint efforts to integrate EBD-related knowledge and skills into dental education. The present scoping review aims to identify and summarize the existing teaching contents, teaching methods, and assessment strategies of EBD education. Electronic (PubMed and Embase) and manual searches were performed to identify articles related to both "dental education" and "evidence-based practice." Based on predetermined eligibility criteria, articles were selected by 2 reviewers, independently and in duplicate. Data synthesis was conducted based on teaching contents, teaching strategies, and teaching assessment. Of the 1758 articles found in the literature searches, 74 were deemed eligible and included in this review. A total of 4 basic skills (problem formulation, literature searching, critical appraisal, and research methodology), 5 teaching methods, and 6 assessment strategies were identified. In most of the articles, 2, or more skills were taught, and a combination of traditional strategies for teaching and its assessment (eg, courses and questionnaire survey) was involved. Other teaching methods, such as journal clubs and workshops, were seldom used, and validated assessment tools accounted for a relatively small proportion of the assessment strategies involved. The contents, methods and assessment of EBD education have been widely studied and discussed. However, the current literature focuses mainly on teaching of critical appraisal skills, traditional teaching methods, and short-term outcome assessments. Future research in this area can be aimed at integrating all EBD-related skills into educational models, studying multifaceted teaching approaches, and developing comprehensive teaching outcome assessment methods based on validated tools and dental patient-reported outcomes.

Group 4 ITI Consensus Report: Patient benefits following implant treatment in partially and fully edentulous patients.

The aim of Working Group 4 was to address patient benefits associated with implant dentistry. Focused questions on (a) dental patient-reported outcomes (dPROs), (b) improvement in orofacial function, and (c) preservation of orofacial tissues in partially and fully edentulous patients following provision of implant-retained/supported dental prostheses were addressed. Three systematic reviews formed the basis for discussion. Participants developed statements and recommendations determined by group consensus based on the findings of the systematic reviews. These were then presented and accepted following further discussion and modifications as required by the plenary of the 7th ITI Consensus Conference, taking place in 2023 in Lisbon, Portugal. Edentulous patients wearing complete dentures (CD) experience substantial improvements in overall dPROs and orofacial function following treatment with either complete implant-supported fixed dental prostheses (CIFDP) or implant overdentures (IODs). With respect to dPROs, mandibular IODs retained by two implants are superior to IODs retained by one implant. However, increasing the number of implants beyond two, does not further improve dPROs. In fully edentulous patients, rehabilitation with CIFDP or IOD is recommended to benefit the preservation of alveolar bone and masseter muscle thickness. Completely edentulous patients benefit substantially when at least the mandible is restored using an CIFDP or an IOD compared to CD. In fully edentulous patients, implant prostheses are the best option for tooth replacement. The availability of this treatment modality should be actively promoted in all edentulous communities, including those with limited access and means.

EFFECTIVENESS OF PHENTOLAMINE MESYLATE IN REVERSAL OF LOCAL ANESTHESIA: SYSTEMATIC REVIEW AND META-ANALYSIS.

The aim of the present paper is to summarize the effectiveness of Phentolamine mesylate on the reversal of local anesthesia (LA). Seven electronic databases were searched for randomized clinical trials in patients who received LA (population) and either received a Phentolamine injection (intervention) after LA compared to placebo or sham (control) to cause a return of normal sensation (outcome). Risk of bias assessment was performed using Cochrane risk of bias assessment tool 2.0. The hazard ratio (HR) was calculated as the event (time to return to the normal sensation) was a time-dependent event, as well as the weighted mean difference (WMD), was computed. The Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) was used to assess the certainty of the evidence. Ten studies met our inclusion criteria and were included in this review. After pooling the results quantitatively, the value of the HR in the tongue was 0.56 (95% CI: 0.41-0.75, P<.001); in lower lip, the value was 0.56 (95% CI: 0.38-0.83, P = .004) and for upper lip, the value was 0.50 (95% CI: 0.31-0.80, P = .004). The WMD for the time to return for normal sensation was -47.71min for the tongue (95% CI: -73.63 to -21.80min, P<.001), -73.29min for lower lip (95% CI: -88.41 to -58.16min, P<.001) and -86.86min for upper lip (95% CI: -101.16 to -72.57min, P<.001). There is a high certainty of evidence that patients who have been administered local anesthesia may achieve faster recovery of normal sensation in tongue, and moderate certainty of evidence for return of normal sensation in lower lip and upper lip, if Phentolamine was administered after the local anesthesia. The adverse effects were reported in a few studies and were minor, not necessitating any medical intervention. Phentolamine might be a useful adjunct in patients who desire an earlier return of normal sensation and function after local anesthesia. Future research should be directed to study the cost-effectiveness or dental patient-reported outcomes of Phentolamine after local anesthetic injections.

DENTAL PATIENT-REPORTED OUTCOMES IN ENDODONTICS - A NARRATIVE REVIEW

Recently in oral health care settings, the focus of assessing treatment outcomes has shifted from the perspective of the clinician towards that of the patient. Endodontology is a specialty of dentistry concerned with the prevention and treatment of pulp and periapical diseases. Research in endodontology and its associated treatment outcomes have focused mainly on clinician-reported outcomes (CROs) and not dental patient-reported outcomes (dPROs). As a result, there is a need to emphasize the importance and relevance of dPROs to researchers and clinicians. The aim of this review is to present an overview of dPROs and dPROMs within endodontics in an attempt to create a better understanding of the patient experience, highlight the need to place the patient at the center of treatment, enhance patient care and encourage more research into dPROs. The key dPROs following endodontic treatment include pain, tenderness, tooth function, need for further intervention, adverse effects (exacerbation of symptoms, tooth discoloration) and Oral Health-Related Quality of Life. dPROs are important following endodontic treatment because they assist clinicians and patients when they discuss and select the most appropriate management options, help clinicians make decisions on pre-operative assessment, prevention and treatment, and improve the methodology and design of future clinical studies. Clinicians and researchers in endodontology should prioritize patient welfare and undertake routine analyses of dPROs using appropriate and robust measures. Due to the lack of agreement over the reporting and definition of endodontic treatment outcomes, a comprehensive project to define a ``Core Outcome Set for Endodontic Treatment Methods (COSET)'' is currently ongoing. In the future, a new and exclusive assessment tool should be developed to reflect the viewpoints of patients receiving endodontic treatment more accurately.

DENTAL PATIENT-REPORTED OUTCOMES UPDATE 2022.

Much progress has been made this year in patient-reported outcomes related research. A number of important articles were published, shedding light on relevant methodological issues as well as future directions. In order to further promote the wide use of dental patient-reported outcomes (dPROs) and dental patient-reported outcome measures (dPROMs) in dental research and dental practice, and to provide novel insights into relevant measurement and analytical methods, the Journal of Evidence-Based Dental Practice has put together this special issue, the second of a series entitled Dental Patient-Reported Outcomes Update. To put Special Issue articles into a broader perspective, this review will provide a concise summary of key, relevant PRO and dPRO articles published during the year of 2022. A brief introduction of those manuscripts collected in this Special Issue follows. Six main domains are covered in this Special Issue: (i) the availability and applicability of dPROs and dPROMs, (ii) the current usage of dPROs and dPROMs in published research, (iii) methodological considerations in dPRO-related research, (iv) the landscape and trends of dPRO-related research, (v) the significance and relevance of dPRO usage, and (vi) dPROs and value-based oral health care.

APPLICABILITY of DENTAL PATIENT REPORTED OUTCOMES in LOW RESOURCE SETTINGS -A CALL to BRIDGE the GAP in CLINICAL and COMMUNITY DENTISTRY.

Low resource settings (LRSs) are typically regions where inadequate healthcare resources exist and the healthcare system does not meet the acceptable global standards. The problems encountered in LRS in oral and dental medicine could be related to lack of human personnel, e.g., insufficient numbers of dentists and other dental professionals, poor infrastructure, limited or remote treatment/care facilities, lack of dental materials and supplies as well as inadequate monitoring and evaluation of public health programs. Despite the limited human resources in LRS, such settings are currently experiencing a brain drain, a situation where there is massive emigration of highly trained and qualified healthcare professionals including dentists to other countries for better living conditions. To allocate health resources judiciously, exploration of alternatives to traditional oral health assessments, which are cheap, easily available, and patient-oriented, becomes pertinent. Thus, there is a need to consider the applicability of oral assessment tools such as dental patient-reported outcomes (dPROs) in general, and oral health-related quality of life (OHRQoL) in particular. Therefore, the aim of this narrative review was to describe opportunities for the applicability of dPROs in LRSs with a focus on Nigeria, based on empirical data. The applicability of dPROs and OHRQoL in LRS includes prevention, screening, diagnosis, assessment of oral health impact, application of the first step of targeted treatment, treatment evaluation, planning, and monitoring of public health programs, as well as research needs. dPROs could be very useful in LRS because their practical advantages may be utilized to improve patient and population health.

THE USE OF DENTAL PATIENT-REPORTED OUTCOMES AMONG RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIALS IN ORTHODONTICS: A METHODOLOGICAL STUDY.

To identify and summarize the use and characteristics of dental patient-reported outcomes (dPROs) and dental patient-reported outcome measures (dPROMs) within randomized controlled trials (RCTs) published in 5 leading orthodontic journals. A manual search was conducted to identify intervention (therapeutic or preventive) related RCTs published in selected journals between 2015 and 2021. Two authors extracted the characteristics of each included trial, as well as all outcomes and outcome measures used in these trials independently and in duplicate. Thereafter, the use of dPROs and dPROMs was identified and summarized. We classified all dPROs into 2 general types (oral health-related quality of life [OHRQoL] and others) and dPROMs into 3 categories (single-item questionnaires, generic multiple-item questionnaires, and specific multiple-item questionnaires). We also identified whether these dPROMs assessed 4 dimensions of OHRQoL (Oral Function, Orofacial Pain, Orofacial Appearance, and Psychosocial Impact). From 4631 examined articles, a total of 315 RCTs were included, of which 76 (24.1%) used dPROs and dPROMs. Eight different dPROs (OHRQoL, patients' satisfaction with treatment, difficulty, compliance, preference, efficacy, duration, and unwanted events) and 34 different dPROMs (including 13 single-item questionnaires, 7 generic multiple-item questionnaires, and 14 specific multiple-item questionnaires) were identified in these trials. OHRQoL was the most commonly used dPRO (n = 71; 93.4%), followed by patients' satisfaction with treatment (n = 10; 13.2%), patient-reported difficulty (n = 5; 6.6%), and patient-reported compliance (n = 4, 5.3%). The 4 most frequently used dPROMs were pain measured with 10 mm Visual Analogue Scale (n = 20; 24.1%), pain measured with Numerical Rating Scale (n = 11; 13.3%), the Feldmann's Questionnaire (2007) (n = 6; 7.2%), and the Oral Health Impact Profile 14 (n = 5; 6.0%). Only about one-fourth of RCTs published in leading orthodontic journals can reflect patients' perspectives. OHRQoL was the most commonly used dPRO in these trials. Substantial heterogeneity exists among dPROMs used for OHRQoL assessment. Efforts are needed from researchers, reviewers, editors and other stakeholders to promote the wide and standardized use of dPROs in orthodontic research.

LESSONS LEARNED FROM the FIRST STEPS of IMPLEMENTING VALUE-BASED ORAL HEALTH CARE: A CASE STUDY FROM the MEDICAL UNIVERSITY of VIENNA

Value-based oral healthcare (VBOHC) has two fundamental components, the assessment of patients' dental outcomes and the measurement of the costs to achieve those outcomes. The aim of this article is to describe challenges and opportunities of implementing dental patient-reported outcomes (dPROs) in clinical care at the University Clinic of Dentistry, Medical University of Vienna, in Austria, to determine lessons learned and describe next steps forward to VBOHC implementation. A case study determining lessons learned based on an implementation process to incorporate a dental patient-reported outcome measure (dPROM) in routine clinical care was conducted. The German version of the five items Oral Health Impact Profile (OHIP-5), a dPROM was selected and integrated into the general anamnesis including dental and medical history for patients aged ≥16 years. The anamnesis is paper based and is to be completed by each new patient during the registration process. Thereafter, it is uploaded to the patients' dental record via scan by the main central admission. However, it is then the treating dentist's task to transfer the data into the digital system. Data accuracy between digital and paper forms was investigated, and lessons learned regarding the first steps of implementing VBOHC were summarized based on the implementation process findings. To date, 8,147 patients were approached to fill in OHIP-5. However, only 266 patients´ OHIP- 5 files were transferred into the digital system by the dentist. To explore the accuracy between the manual transfer of data from paper forms to digital format, the data of 89 randomly selected patients was compared. Of this sample, 74 (83.1%) patient's data sets were found to be identical. Lessons learned included the importance of institutional dedication, stakeholders' engagement, dPROMs integration in follow up visits, the significance of digital solutions, and the continuous monitoring and evaluation. Integrating dPROMs in clinical settings is achievable and is the first important step to move forward with VBOHC implementation.

A Bibliometric Mapping Study of the Literature on Oral Health-related Quality of Life

Oral health is an indispensable component of overall health, and oral health status significantly influences people's physical, mental, and social well-being. Oral health-related quality of life (OHRQoL), an important and widely used dental patient-reported outcome (dPRO), is attracting more and more researchers' attention and interest. This study aimed to analyze and map the existing scientific literature regarding OHRQoL through a bibliometric approach, including a summary of the characteristics of OHRQoL-related publications, the identification of prolific entities, high-frequency keywords analysis, and research trend analysis via periodic high-impact keywords. A literature search was conducted in the Web of Science Core Collection to collect OHRQoL-related original research and review articles. After examination and deduplication, the following bibliometric information was extracted from each article: title, abstract, keywords, authors, affiliations, geographic origin (countries/regions), year of publication, journal name, and references. Various scientometric mapping tools including Microsoft Office spreadsheet, VOSviewer, Biblioshiny R-package software, and Scimago Graphica were used to analyze basic bibliometric parameters, leading producers, high-impact keywords, and research trends. A total of 3324 OHRQoL-related articles (3119 original research articles and 205 review papers) were collected, which received 65,704 citations. A total of 9950 authors from 2429 organizations contributed to this body of research. Prolific authors from Europe, USA, Brazil, New Zealand, China, and Canada were identified, and they also centered collaboration clusters in the co-author network. Community Dentistry and Oral Epidemiology was the most prolific journal. Twenty-one keywords with more than 200 occurrences, and 23 keywords with more than 150 occurrences, were identified for publications of 1994-2021 and 2012-2021, respectively. Keyword analysis revealed hot topics such as instrument development and validation, studies targeting children and adolescents, as well as clinical studies in operative dentistry, implantology, orthodontics, and community dentistry. Oral Health Impact Profile is the most commonly used instrument in OHRQoL-related research. OHRQoL is an impactful topic in dental health care as it is not only useful in dental research and patient-centered clinical outcome measures but also provides valuable guidance in dental public health administration and policy making. OHRQoL-related research presents a dynamic landscape and is expected to continue presenting high productivity and broad application in the future.

ASSESSMENT OF THE FREQUENCY OF REPORTING DENTAL PATIENT-REPORTED OUTCOMES (dPROs) IN A SAMPLE OF RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIALS ON ROOT COVERAGE PROCEDURES

Dental patient-reported outcomes (dPROs) are important for understanding the impact of proposed therapies on patients' oral health. The aims of the present study were to investigate the frequency of the reporting of dPROs in randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of root coverage procedures and to assess associations between the study/article characteristics and the reporting level of the dPROs. The PubMed database was searched for RCTs of root coverage procedures in March 16, 2022 and articles published up to March 2022 were included. Information on the types of outcomes and the characteristics of the studies/articles were extracted and reported as frequencies and percentages. Univariate and multivariate binary logistic regression analyses were performed to investigate the associations between the study/article characteristics and the reporting level of dPROs. The search initially identified 387 articles, and after applying the eligibility criteria, 135 articles reporting 135 RCTs were included. A combination of dPROs and non-dPROs was reported in 61.5% of the selected trials, while 37.8% of the trials reported only non-dPROs. Pain or discomfort was the most frequently reported dPRO (n = 58, 43% of the RCTs). More recently published RCTs reported more dPROs. The country of the first author (odds ratio [OR]: 4.39; 95% CI: 1.76-10.95; P < .01), protocol registration (OR: 0.36; 95% CI: 0.16-0.83; P = .02), and RCT type (OR: 0.38; 95% CI: 0.17-0.83; P = .02) were significantly associated with the reporting level of the dPROs. Researchers in recent years seem to be paying more attention to the importance of dPROs. RCTs in which the first authors were from developed countries, registered trials, and RCTs with a parallel design were more likely to report dPROs than RCTs with first authors from developing countries, unregistered trials, and RCTs with a split-mouth design.

Are Mini Dental Implants Suitable for Support of Crowns or Small Bridges in the Mandibular Incisor Region? A 5-year Longitudinal Study

It has not been previously studied whether 1-piece category 1 narrow dental implants (≤2.5mm wide) can successfully support crowns or small bridges. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the long-term benefits of the fixed-type mini dental implants (MDIs) for replacement of mandibular incisors. In a prospective cohort study, fixed-type 1-piece MDIs, replacing single or multiple mandibular incisors, supporting metal-ceramic single crowns (unsplinted group), or splinted crowns/small bridges (splinted group) were observed over the period of 5years. The primary predictor was the splinting status. The primary outcome variables were peri-implant marginal bone level (MBL) change, success, and survival rates (assessed as per Pisa Consensus Conference). The secondary outcomes were dental patient-reported outcome measures (dPROMs) and oral hygiene assessment. Descriptive statistics, Chi-squared test, t-test, Mann-Whitney and Wilcoxon tests, Kaplan-Meier survival analysis, log-rank (Mantel-Cox) comparison, Cox proportional hazard analyses adjusting for number of implants, Spearman correlation, and repeated measures were used for data analysis. From 44 participants (mean age 56.02±5.72years), 40 completed the 5-year study: 23 in the splinted and 17 in unsplinted group. Three subjects did not respond, while 1 MDI failed (third year) in the unsplinted group. Mean marginal bone level (MBL) change in both groups was small; however, it increased over time (-0.22±0.38mm after 1 year; -0.54±0.56mm after 5years; P<.05). After 5years mean MBL change was -0.59±0.71mm in the unsplinted and -0.50±0.41mm in the splinted group (P>.05). Survival analysis revealed no significant difference between the unsplinted (85.7% success, 4.8% failures, and 9.5% satisfactory survivals) and splinted group (93.4% success and 6.6% satisfactory survivals) (P>.05). The group affiliation (unsplinted vs splinted) and number of implants were not significant predictors of MDI failure or survival rates (P>.05). Significant improvement in dPROMs after rehabilitation remained unchanged over 5years (P>.05). Modified plaque index significantly increased over time, correlating with the MBL loss. MDIs supporting crowns and/or small bridges in the mandibular incisor region showed small rates of marginal bone loss, acceptable success, and survival rates and improved dPROMs over a 5-year observation period.

Commonalities among dental patient-reported outcomes (dPROs)-A Delphi consensus study.

Improvement of patients' oral health-related quality of life (OHRQoL) is the main goal of oral health care professionals. However, OHRQoL is not a homogenous construct and how to assess it is challenging because of the large number of currently available instruments. Investigating available instruments and what they have in common would be necessary for consolidation and standardization of these instruments into a smaller set of tools. If the OHRQoL dimensions including Oral Function, Orofacial Pain, Orofacial Appearance, and Psychosocial Impact are the fundamental building blocks of the dental patient's oral health experience, then these dimensions should be measured by generic multi-item dPROMs. In this study, a panel of 11 international dentists use the Delphi consensus process to determine how well 20 of these instruments measured the four OHRQoL dimensions. All 20 dPROMs questionnaires assessed at least one OHRQoL dimension while all four OHRQoL dimensions were measured by at least one dPROM instrument, i.e., the four OHRQoL dimensions were essential components of the patient's oral health experience. This shows that the currently available generic multi-item dPROMs have a lot in common, in that they share Oral Function, Orofacial Pain, Orofacial Appearance, and Psychosocial Impact as targeted dimensions. Based on these commonalities, it is plausible and desirable to move towards a single four-dimensional metric to assess oral health impact in all clinical, community-based, and research settings. This step is necessary to advance evidence-based dentistry and value-based oral health care.

Temporomandibular disorder symptoms in young adults: Three-dimensional impact on oral health-related quality of life.

The impact of temporomandibular disorders on functional, pain, and psychosocial aspect of patients' quality of life needed to be assessed. This study examined the three-dimensional impact of pain-related and/or intra-articular Temporomandibular disorder (TMD) symptoms and ascertained the inter-relationships between the functional, pain, and psychosocial aspects of oral health-related quality of life (OHRQoL). Young adults were enlisted from a local university and TMD symptoms were assessed with the Diagnostic Criteria for TMDs Symptom Questionnaire (DC/TMD-SQ). Participants were stratified into those with no (NT), pain-related (PT), intra-articular (IT), and mixed (MT) TMD symptoms. OHRQoL was examined using the Oral Health Impact Profile-14 (OHIP-14), and dimensional effects (oral function [OF], orofacial pain [OP], and psychosocial impact [PI]) were established subsequently. Data were evaluated with Kruskal-Wallis, Dunn, and Wilcoxon signed-rank tests (α=.05). The mean age of the participants (n=1205) was 7 ± 1.3 years (71.8% women). While 42.2% reported no TMD symptoms, 22.3%, 16.9%, and 18.5% had PT, IT, and MT accordingly. The MT, PT, and IT groups presented higher total OHIP-14 and dimension scores than the NT group (p < .01). Scores were also significantly different between the MT and IT groups except for OF. For all TMD groups, the ranking of dimensional impact was OP > PI > OF, and associations between the OP and PI dimensions were the strongest (correlation coefficient [rs ]=.57-.76). Young adults with PT and/or IT symptoms have poorer OHRQoL, especially in the OP and PI dimensions, which were moderate to strongly correlated. The use of the three dental Patient-reported Outcome (dPRO) dimensions could provide construct equivalency among OHRQoL measures.

The Potential Role of Dental Patient-Reported Outcomes (dPROs) in Evidence-Based Prosthodontics and Clinical Care: A Narrative Review.

Oral health problems are associated with poor quality of life, with the potential to cause functional, aesthetic, nutritional, and psychological difficulties, in addition to pain and suffering. Traditionally, dental treatment outcomes are measured using purely clinical parameters; however, this may be ineffective as these parameters cannot adequately capture the full impact of poor oral health on the patient, or their respective coping strategies. From this perspective, there are significant benefits when the patient’s perception of their care is considered, and included in treatment planning and delivery. The impacts perceived by the patient on their treatment outcomes can be measured using patient-reported outcomes (PROS), or more specifically with dPROS, focused on dental patient-reported outcomes. Although there are some instruments available for measuring these outcomes in clinical trials, very little information is available for explaining the context in which these outcomes are considered, and also how to capture this information using appropriate instruments, specially in evidence-based dental practice. This article aims to review the literature, seeking to describe what has been considered about assessing patient’s outcomes, as well as how to measure them, and explore the potential benefits of using dPROS in evidence-based prosthodontics and clinical care of partially and fully edentulous patients.