Clinical oral implants research · 2026
1st Global Consensus for Clinical Guidelines for the Rehabilitation of the Edentulous Maxilla: Patient and Cross-Disciplinary Expert Single-Round Surveys.
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.
Lin Guo-Hao, Brunello Giulia, Jung Ronald E, Kopp Ina, Schwarz Frank, Wang Hom-Lay, Strauss Franz J
Аннотация
OBJECTIVES: To gather perspectives from patients and cross-disciplinary experts on treatment practices and outcomes in managing the edentulous maxilla to inform a structured consensus process and highlight areas for future research.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: An 18-item single-round survey was distributed in November 2024 with 68 patients and 68 cross-disciplinary experts. Participation was voluntary, anonymous, incentive-free, and required informed consent. Consensus was defined as > 75% and ≤ 95% agreement or disagreement, and strong consensus as > 95% agreement or disagreement.
RESULTS: Response rates were 60.3% among patients, and 30.9% among cross-disciplinary experts. Consensus or strong consensus was achieved by patients on 15 statements across nine items and by cross-disciplinary experts on 15 statements across eight items. Items reaching consensus included the use of cone-beam computed tomography, preference for fixed full-arch prostheses, major treatment outcomes, need for hard tissue augmentation, home care regimens, dental implant lifespan, procedure difficulty, cost-effectiveness, and patient-reported outcomes. Both groups also highlighted the need for further research on full-arch implant rehabilitation of the maxilla.
CONCLUSION: Findings from both surveys inform the development of clinical practice guidelines in treating the edentulous maxilla by providing valuable perspectives from patients and cross-disciplinary experts. Areas lacking consensus illustrate real-world variations in treatment approaches, highlight knowledge gaps in the current literature, and reveal important differences among patient expectations, expert opinions, and available evidence.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: An 18-item single-round survey was distributed in November 2024 with 68 patients and 68 cross-disciplinary experts. Participation was voluntary, anonymous, incentive-free, and required informed consent. Consensus was defined as > 75% and ≤ 95% agreement or disagreement, and strong consensus as > 95% agreement or disagreement.
RESULTS: Response rates were 60.3% among patients, and 30.9% among cross-disciplinary experts. Consensus or strong consensus was achieved by patients on 15 statements across nine items and by cross-disciplinary experts on 15 statements across eight items. Items reaching consensus included the use of cone-beam computed tomography, preference for fixed full-arch prostheses, major treatment outcomes, need for hard tissue augmentation, home care regimens, dental implant lifespan, procedure difficulty, cost-effectiveness, and patient-reported outcomes. Both groups also highlighted the need for further research on full-arch implant rehabilitation of the maxilla.
CONCLUSION: Findings from both surveys inform the development of clinical practice guidelines in treating the edentulous maxilla by providing valuable perspectives from patients and cross-disciplinary experts. Areas lacking consensus illustrate real-world variations in treatment approaches, highlight knowledge gaps in the current literature, and reveal important differences among patient expectations, expert opinions, and available evidence.