The International journal of prosthodontics · 2026
Health Quality Domains of IoM, WHO, and OECD in a 1-Year Prospective Quality Register Study on Implant Treatment in Patients with Dental Agenesis.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
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.
Florescu Vlad Andrei, Lerche Christian, Holte Michael Boelstoft, Pinholt Else Marie
Аннотация
PURPOSE: To evaluate the implementation of the AMETO register in the region of Southern Denmark and how data application relates to the following Institute of Medicine (IoM), World Health Organization (WHO), and Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) health domains: efficiency, effectiveness, patient-centered care, timeliness, safety, and equitability.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: Implementation of the register was measured using patients registered by the age of 18 years. Inclusion criteria were access to the following data: type of treatment, single- or two-stage procedures, bone augmentation, implant characteristics, and suprastructure retention methods as optional measures of efficiency; treatment outcome measures, implant survival, peri-implant bone level and health, suprastructure conditions, and cosmetic results as optional measures of effectiveness; anamnestic information and Oral Health Impact Profile (OHIP)-5 questionnaires as optional measures of patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) and patient-centered care; patient readiness for implant insertion by performed orthodontic preimplant treatment as a measure of timeliness; avoiding adverse effects of medication, allergic reactions, and tissue damage as optional measures of safety; and age, gender, ethnicity, geographic location, and socioeconomic data as optional measures of equitability.
RESULTS: There were 227 registered patients. A total of 26 patients (25 with dental agenesis and 1 with trauma) were included, fulfilling the study's power estimate that was calculated using peri-implant bone level at 1-year follow-up. Patients lacking OHIP questionnaires, implant information, or intraoral radiographs were excluded.
CONCLUSIONS: Implementing the AMETO register was challenging. The clinical data in the AMETO register correlate well with the domains used by the IoM, WHO, and OECD.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: Implementation of the register was measured using patients registered by the age of 18 years. Inclusion criteria were access to the following data: type of treatment, single- or two-stage procedures, bone augmentation, implant characteristics, and suprastructure retention methods as optional measures of efficiency; treatment outcome measures, implant survival, peri-implant bone level and health, suprastructure conditions, and cosmetic results as optional measures of effectiveness; anamnestic information and Oral Health Impact Profile (OHIP)-5 questionnaires as optional measures of patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) and patient-centered care; patient readiness for implant insertion by performed orthodontic preimplant treatment as a measure of timeliness; avoiding adverse effects of medication, allergic reactions, and tissue damage as optional measures of safety; and age, gender, ethnicity, geographic location, and socioeconomic data as optional measures of equitability.
RESULTS: There were 227 registered patients. A total of 26 patients (25 with dental agenesis and 1 with trauma) were included, fulfilling the study's power estimate that was calculated using peri-implant bone level at 1-year follow-up. Patients lacking OHIP questionnaires, implant information, or intraoral radiographs were excluded.
CONCLUSIONS: Implementing the AMETO register was challenging. The clinical data in the AMETO register correlate well with the domains used by the IoM, WHO, and OECD.