Clinical oral implants research · 2026
Consensus Report of Group 2 of the 1st Global Consensus for Clinical Guidelines for the Rehabilitation of the Edentulous Maxilla: Zygomatic, Standard-Length, and Short Implant-Supported Prostheses.
СтатьяConsensus StatementНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Pala Kevser, Neugebauer Jörg, Buser Daniel, Brunello Giulia, Chmielewski Krzysztof, Chowdhary Ramesh, Cordaro Luca, Hosokawa Ryuji, Jensen Ole, Jung Ui-Won, Lin Ye, Mardas Nikos, Markovic Aleksa, Mattheos Nikos, Mijiritsky Eitan, Milinkovic Iva, Nunes Leandro, Polido Waldemar D, Sanz Mariano, Schwarz Frank, Sculean Anton, Stavropoulos Andreas, Strauss Franz J, Sumi Takashi, Thieringer Florian M, Thoma Daniel S, Yi Yuseung, Gallucci German O
Аннотация
OBJECTIVES: The 1st Global Consensus for Clinical Guidelines (GCCG) in Implant Dentistry introduced an innovative, evidence-based approach to developing patient-centered and practical recommendations for the rehabilitation of the edentulous maxilla. Within this framework, Group 2 aimed to formulate clinical recommendations on the use of short, standard-length, and zygomatic implants in atrophic maxillae.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: Group 2 followed the S2k-level guideline framework of the Association of the Scientific Medical Societies in Germany (AWMF), applying a structured nominal group technique. The evidence base included two systematic reviews synthesizing patient-reported outcomes (PROs), clinician-reported outcomes (ClinROs), and their respective measures, as well as single-round international surveys involving expert clinicians, patients, and cross-disciplinary experts. Draft recommendations were discussed during the in-person consensus meeting in Boston (June 16-18, 2025) and finalized through anonymous plenary voting. Consensus thresholds were predefined at ≥ 75% and ≤ 95% agreement for consensus and > 95% agreement for strong consensus.
RESULTS: The Group 2 participants formulated 6 clinical recommendations addressing the domains patient selection, surgical treatment options (short, standard-length, and zygomatic implants), and treatment planning. All 6 recommendations reached consensus.
CONCLUSIONS: The Group 2 consensus provides practical guidance for the use of short, standard-length, and zygomatic implants in atrophic maxillae, balancing surgical complexity, prosthetic feasibility, and patient-centered care. Remaining evidence gaps-especially regarding standardized outcome sets, loading protocols, prosthetic strategies for zygomatic implants, the use of short implants for full-arch restorations and maintenance frameworks-should be prioritized in future research.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: Group 2 followed the S2k-level guideline framework of the Association of the Scientific Medical Societies in Germany (AWMF), applying a structured nominal group technique. The evidence base included two systematic reviews synthesizing patient-reported outcomes (PROs), clinician-reported outcomes (ClinROs), and their respective measures, as well as single-round international surveys involving expert clinicians, patients, and cross-disciplinary experts. Draft recommendations were discussed during the in-person consensus meeting in Boston (June 16-18, 2025) and finalized through anonymous plenary voting. Consensus thresholds were predefined at ≥ 75% and ≤ 95% agreement for consensus and > 95% agreement for strong consensus.
RESULTS: The Group 2 participants formulated 6 clinical recommendations addressing the domains patient selection, surgical treatment options (short, standard-length, and zygomatic implants), and treatment planning. All 6 recommendations reached consensus.
CONCLUSIONS: The Group 2 consensus provides practical guidance for the use of short, standard-length, and zygomatic implants in atrophic maxillae, balancing surgical complexity, prosthetic feasibility, and patient-centered care. Remaining evidence gaps-especially regarding standardized outcome sets, loading protocols, prosthetic strategies for zygomatic implants, the use of short implants for full-arch restorations and maintenance frameworks-should be prioritized in future research.