Clinical Oral Implants Research最新文献_第2页

Trueness of Dental Implant Placement With Robotic Computer‐Assisted Implant Surgery: A Meta‐Analysis of Clinical Studies 机器人计算机辅助种植手术牙种植体放置的准确性：临床研究的荟萃分析

IF 4.3 1区医学 Q1 DENTISTRY, ORAL SURGERY & MEDICINE

Clinical Oral Implants Research

Pub Date : 2026-02-13 DOI: 10.1111/clr.70102

Nadia Sultana Shuborna, Sirimanas Jiaranuchart, James Chow, Alessandro Pozzi, Nikos Mattheos, Keskanya Subbalekha

Objective This study aimed to assess the trueness of dental implant placement with robotic Computer‐Assisted Implant Surgery (r‐CAIS), compare it with non‐guided and other CAIS approaches, and investigate potential differences between sites in the maxilla and mandible. Materials and Methods A literature search was carried out in Scopus, MEDLINE/PubMed, and Cochrane Library to find prospective clinical studies where r‐CAIS was used either as the sole procedure or compared with other CAIS approaches. Studies reporting trueness measured by means of deviation on platform, apex, and angle were included. Results Nineteen studies were eligible. The overall implant deviation using r‐CAIS was 0.75 mm (95% Confidence interval [CI] = 0.68; 0.83), 0.79 mm (95% CI = 0.71; 0.87), and 1.88° (95% CI = 1.55; 2.20), in platform, apex, and angle, respectively. r‐CAIS showed significantly less deviation compared to non‐guided implant placement. Moreover, r‐CAIS demonstrated less apex and angle deviation than static CAIS, and less angle deviation than dynamic CAIS. No difference in the trueness between the maxilla and the mandible was noted. Conclusions Although several clinical trials on r‐CAIS are now available, only a few comparative studies have been performed. Within these limitations, r‐CAIS can achieve a high level of trueness in implant placement. Future comparative clinical trials with other implant placement methods are needed to augment the available evidence and provide more robust conclusions.

目的本研究旨在评估机器人计算机辅助种植手术（r - CAIS）种植体放置的准确性，将其与非引导和其他CAIS方法进行比较，并探讨上颌和下颌骨部位之间的潜在差异。材料和方法在Scopus、MEDLINE/PubMed和Cochrane图书馆中进行文献检索，寻找将r‐CAIS作为唯一方法或与其他CAIS方法进行比较的前瞻性临床研究。通过平台、顶点和角度的偏差来测量准确性的研究也包括在内。结果19项研究符合条件。使用r‐CAIS的种植体总体偏差在平台、尖端和角度上分别为0.75 mm（95%可信区间[CI] = 0.68; 0.83）、0.79 mm （95% CI = 0.71; 0.87）和1.88°（95% CI = 1.55; 2.20）。与非引导种植体放置相比，r - CAIS显示明显更少的偏差。此外，r - CAIS比静态CAIS具有更小的顶点和角度偏差，比动态CAIS具有更小的角度偏差。上颌和下颌骨的真实度没有差异。结论：虽然目前有一些关于r - CAIS的临床试验，但只有少数的比较研究进行了。在这些限制下，r - CAIS可以在种植体放置中达到高水平的准确性。未来需要与其他种植体放置方法进行比较临床试验，以增加现有证据并提供更可靠的结论。

{"title":"Trueness of Dental Implant Placement With Robotic Computer‐Assisted Implant Surgery: A Meta‐Analysis of Clinical Studies","authors":"Nadia Sultana Shuborna, Sirimanas Jiaranuchart, James Chow, Alessandro Pozzi, Nikos Mattheos, Keskanya Subbalekha","doi":"10.1111/clr.70102","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1111/clr.70102","url":null,"abstract":"Objective This study aimed to assess the trueness of dental implant placement with robotic Computer‐Assisted Implant Surgery (r‐CAIS), compare it with non‐guided and other CAIS approaches, and investigate potential differences between sites in the maxilla and mandible. Materials and Methods A literature search was carried out in Scopus, MEDLINE/PubMed, and Cochrane Library to find prospective clinical studies where r‐CAIS was used either as the sole procedure or compared with other CAIS approaches. Studies reporting trueness measured by means of deviation on platform, apex, and angle were included. Results Nineteen studies were eligible. The overall implant deviation using r‐CAIS was 0.75 mm (95% Confidence interval [CI] = 0.68; 0.83), 0.79 mm (95% CI = 0.71; 0.87), and 1.88° (95% CI = 1.55; 2.20), in platform, apex, and angle, respectively. r‐CAIS showed significantly less deviation compared to non‐guided implant placement. Moreover, r‐CAIS demonstrated less apex and angle deviation than static CAIS, and less angle deviation than dynamic CAIS. No difference in the trueness between the maxilla and the mandible was noted. Conclusions Although several clinical trials on r‐CAIS are now available, only a few comparative studies have been performed. Within these limitations, r‐CAIS can achieve a high level of trueness in implant placement. Future comparative clinical trials with other implant placement methods are needed to augment the available evidence and provide more robust conclusions.","PeriodicalId":10455,"journal":{"name":"Clinical Oral Implants Research","volume":"48 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":4.3,"publicationDate":"2026-02-13","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"146169375","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 0

Longitudinal Changes in the Peri‐Implant Microbiome Following Implant Placement: A 3‐Year Follow‐Up Study 种植体放置后种植体周围微生物组的纵向变化：一项为期3年的随访研究

IF 4.3 1区医学 Q1 DENTISTRY, ORAL SURGERY & MEDICINE

Clinical Oral Implants Research

Pub Date : 2026-02-11 DOI: 10.1111/clr.70101

Blanca Vílchez, Cristina Chamorro, Elena Figuero, María José Marín, Marion Arce, Purnima S. Kumar, Mariano Sanz

Aim To investigate longitudinal changes in the submucosal peri‐implant microbiome during early healing and long‐term maturation, and their association with clinical and radiographic outcomes. Materials and Methods This is the 3‐year follow‐up of a subset of individuals from a randomized controlled clinical trial. Marginal bone level changes (MBL) were measured at implant placement, loading, 12 months, and 3 years; clinical parameters were recorded at 12 months and 3 years. Submucosal plaque samples were collected at 1 week, 4 weeks, and 3 years post‐implantation and analyzed by 16S rRNA gene sequencing. Microbial diversity, composition, and co‐occurrence networks were evaluated. Results Twenty‐seven patients (64 implants) completed the 3‐year visit. At 3 years, peri‐implant clinical conditions and MBL remained stable across visits, although early supracrestal remodeling was observed. The incidence of peri‐implant mucositis was 14.8% and peri‐implantitis 11.1% at patient‐level. Microbiome richness and phylogenetic diversity increased over time ( p < 0.0001). Early biofilms were dominated by facultative anaerobes (e.g., Haemophilus parainfluenzae , Neisseria elongata ), which declined at 3 years, when anaerobic/proteolytic taxa (e.g., Prevotella , Porphyromonas gingivalis , Fusobacterium nucleatum ) became more prominent. Presence/absence analyses at 3 years showed persistence of early colonizers alongside the integration of later‐arriving species. Lactococcus lactis and Enterococcus italicus increased in abundance and occupied more central positions in co‐occurrence networks. Conclusions Over 3 years, the peri‐implant microbiome matured into a more diverse and structured community, while MBL remained stable with physiological early supracrestal remodeling. These longitudinal findings suggest that early colonization and its subsequent evolution may influence long‐term peri‐implant health.

目的研究早期愈合和长期成熟过程中粘膜下种植体周围微生物群的纵向变化及其与临床和影像学结果的关系。材料和方法这是一项来自随机对照临床试验的个体子集的3年随访。在种植体放置、加载、12个月和3年时测量边缘骨水平变化（MBL）；记录12个月和3年的临床参数。在植入后1周、4周和3年收集粘膜下斑块样本，并通过16S rRNA基因测序进行分析。对微生物多样性、组成和共生网络进行了评估。结果27例患者（64颗种植体）完成了3年的随访。在3年的随访中，尽管观察到早期的耻骨上重塑，但种植体周围的临床状况和MBL保持稳定。在患者水平上，种植体周围粘膜炎的发生率为14.8%，种植体周围炎的发生率为11.1%。微生物组丰富度和系统发育多样性随时间增加（p < 0.0001）。早期的生物膜以兼性厌氧菌为主（如副流感嗜血杆菌、长奈瑟菌），在3岁时减少，此时厌氧/蛋白水解分类群（如普雷沃菌、牙龈卟啉单胞菌、核梭菌）变得更加突出。3年的存在/不存在分析表明，早期殖民者的持续存在以及后来到达的物种的融合。乳酸乳球菌和意大利肠球菌数量增加，在共发生网络中占据更中心的位置。结论：在3年多的时间里，种植体周围的微生物群成熟为一个更加多样化和结构化的群落，而MBL则保持稳定，并伴有早期的生理性阴茎上重构。这些纵向研究结果表明，早期定殖及其随后的进化可能会影响种植期的长期健康。

{"title":"Longitudinal Changes in the Peri‐Implant Microbiome Following Implant Placement: A 3‐Year Follow‐Up Study","authors":"Blanca Vílchez, Cristina Chamorro, Elena Figuero, María José Marín, Marion Arce, Purnima S. Kumar, Mariano Sanz","doi":"10.1111/clr.70101","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1111/clr.70101","url":null,"abstract":"Aim To investigate longitudinal changes in the submucosal peri‐implant microbiome during early healing and long‐term maturation, and their association with clinical and radiographic outcomes. Materials and Methods This is the 3‐year follow‐up of a subset of individuals from a randomized controlled clinical trial. Marginal bone level changes (MBL) were measured at implant placement, loading, 12 months, and 3 years; clinical parameters were recorded at 12 months and 3 years. Submucosal plaque samples were collected at 1 week, 4 weeks, and 3 years post‐implantation and analyzed by 16S rRNA gene sequencing. Microbial diversity, composition, and co‐occurrence networks were evaluated. Results Twenty‐seven patients (64 implants) completed the 3‐year visit. At 3 years, peri‐implant clinical conditions and MBL remained stable across visits, although early supracrestal remodeling was observed. The incidence of peri‐implant mucositis was 14.8% and peri‐implantitis 11.1% at patient‐level. Microbiome richness and phylogenetic diversity increased over time ( p < 0.0001). Early biofilms were dominated by facultative anaerobes (e.g., Haemophilus parainfluenzae , Neisseria elongata ), which declined at 3 years, when anaerobic/proteolytic taxa (e.g., Prevotella , Porphyromonas gingivalis , Fusobacterium nucleatum ) became more prominent. Presence/absence analyses at 3 years showed persistence of early colonizers alongside the integration of later‐arriving species. Lactococcus lactis and Enterococcus italicus increased in abundance and occupied more central positions in co‐occurrence networks. Conclusions Over 3 years, the peri‐implant microbiome matured into a more diverse and structured community, while MBL remained stable with physiological early supracrestal remodeling. These longitudinal findings suggest that early colonization and its subsequent evolution may influence long‐term peri‐implant health.","PeriodicalId":10455,"journal":{"name":"Clinical Oral Implants Research","volume":"4 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":4.3,"publicationDate":"2026-02-11","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"146153626","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 0

Dietary Experiences and Needs of Edentulous Patients Following Full Arch Implant Surgery: A Qualitative Study 全牙弓种植术后无牙患者的饮食经验和需求：一项定性研究

IF 4.3 1区医学 Q1 DENTISTRY, ORAL SURGERY & MEDICINE

Clinical Oral Implants Research

Pub Date : 2026-02-02 DOI: 10.1111/clr.70092

Xinxin Han, Qian Deng, Qian Ding, Yajin Li, Shaoxia Pan

Purpose This study aimed to explore the dietary experiences and needs of edentulous patients after full arch implant surgery, and to provide evidence for developing scientific dietary management protocols. Materials and Methods A descriptive qualitative study guided by phenomenological principles was conducted by using purposive sampling. Semi‐structured in‐depth interviews were performed with participants who underwent full arch implant surgery in edentulous jaws. The data were analyzed using thematic analysis, involving familiarizing oneself with the data, generating initial codes, identifying, reviewing, defining, and naming themes, and producing the report. Results Twenty‐one participants, mean age (61.05 ± 7.05) years, were invited and included in the study. Three main themes and nine sub‐themes were identified: Functional food intake limitation (changes in food texture, masticatory dysfunction, limited dietary diversity, decreased food intake); Decline in quality of life (loss of eating enjoyment, excessive dietary restrictions, invisible impairment of social functioning); Need for dietary guidance (urgent demand for professional guidance, content of the requirements and formal preference). Conclusions Edentulous patients undergoing implant surgery experienced multidimensional eating restrictions and dietary challenges. The majority of patients expressed a pressing need for professional dietary guidance to enhance dietary experience and quality of life. During the critical period of osseointegration following edentulous jaw surgery, a combination of conventional and digital methods can be employed to meet patients' information needs and address existing clinical shortcomings. Based on research findings, future efforts are needed to develop a phased progressive dietary guidance protocol tailored to patient needs, aligned with the biological stages of osseointegration.

目的探讨全牙弓种植术后无牙患者的饮食体验和需求，为制定科学的饮食管理方案提供依据。材料与方法采用目的性抽样，在现象学原理指导下进行描述性定性研究。对在无牙颌进行全弓种植手术的参与者进行了半结构化的深度访谈。使用主题分析对数据进行分析，包括熟悉数据、生成初始代码、识别、审查、定义和命名主题以及生成报告。结果21名平均年龄（61.05±7.05）岁的受试者被邀请并纳入研究。确定了三个主题和九个子主题：功能性食物摄入限制（食物质地变化、咀嚼功能障碍、饮食多样性有限、食物摄入量减少）；生活质量下降（失去饮食乐趣、过度限制饮食、无形的社会功能障碍）；需要膳食指导（迫切需要专业指导，内容要求和形式偏好）。结论无牙患者接受种植手术时存在多方面的饮食限制和饮食挑战。大多数患者表示迫切需要专业的饮食指导，以提高饮食体验和生活质量。在无牙颌手术后骨整合的关键时期，可以采用传统和数字化方法相结合的方法来满足患者的信息需求，解决临床存在的不足。基于研究结果，未来需要努力开发一种针对患者需求的分阶段渐进式饮食指导方案，并与骨整合的生物学阶段保持一致。

{"title":"Dietary Experiences and Needs of Edentulous Patients Following Full Arch Implant Surgery: A Qualitative Study","authors":"Xinxin Han, Qian Deng, Qian Ding, Yajin Li, Shaoxia Pan","doi":"10.1111/clr.70092","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1111/clr.70092","url":null,"abstract":"Purpose This study aimed to explore the dietary experiences and needs of edentulous patients after full arch implant surgery, and to provide evidence for developing scientific dietary management protocols. Materials and Methods A descriptive qualitative study guided by phenomenological principles was conducted by using purposive sampling. Semi‐structured in‐depth interviews were performed with participants who underwent full arch implant surgery in edentulous jaws. The data were analyzed using thematic analysis, involving familiarizing oneself with the data, generating initial codes, identifying, reviewing, defining, and naming themes, and producing the report. Results Twenty‐one participants, mean age (61.05 ± 7.05) years, were invited and included in the study. Three main themes and nine sub‐themes were identified: Functional food intake limitation (changes in food texture, masticatory dysfunction, limited dietary diversity, decreased food intake); Decline in quality of life (loss of eating enjoyment, excessive dietary restrictions, invisible impairment of social functioning); Need for dietary guidance (urgent demand for professional guidance, content of the requirements and formal preference). Conclusions Edentulous patients undergoing implant surgery experienced multidimensional eating restrictions and dietary challenges. The majority of patients expressed a pressing need for professional dietary guidance to enhance dietary experience and quality of life. During the critical period of osseointegration following edentulous jaw surgery, a combination of conventional and digital methods can be employed to meet patients' information needs and address existing clinical shortcomings. Based on research findings, future efforts are needed to develop a phased progressive dietary guidance protocol tailored to patient needs, aligned with the biological stages of osseointegration.","PeriodicalId":10455,"journal":{"name":"Clinical Oral Implants Research","volume":"115 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":4.3,"publicationDate":"2026-02-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"146098413","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 0

Consensus Report of Group 3 of the 1st Global Consensus for Clinical Guidelines for the Rehabilitation of the Edentulous Maxilla: Advanced Diagnostic Imaging, Augmentation Techniques, and Management of Complications. 第一届全球无牙颌康复临床指南第三组共识报告：先进的诊断成像、增强技术和并发症处理。

IF 5.3 1区医学 Q1 DENTISTRY, ORAL SURGERY & MEDICINE

Clinical Oral Implants Research

Pub Date : 2026-02-01 DOI: 10.1111/clr.70079

Joseph Fiorellini, Guo-Hao Lin, Isabella Rocchietta, Sean Mojaver, Tara Aghaloo, Kang-Min Ahn, Bilal Al-Nawas, Maurício Araújo, Jamil Awad Shibli, James Chow, Marcelo Faveri, Tobias Fretwurst, Markus Hürzeler, Darnell Kaigler, Fouad Khoury, Sungtae Kim, Marcel F Kunrath, Hong-Chang Lai, Michel R Messora, Robert Sader, Muhammad H A Saleh, Junyu Shi, Simon Storgård Jensen, Tiziano Testori, István Urban, Yiqun Wu, Alvin Zad, Hom-Lay Wang, Christer Dahlin

Objectives: The 1st Global Consensus for Clinical Guidelines (GCCG) in Implant Dentistry introduced an evidence-based, patient-centered framework for rehabilitating the edentulous maxilla. Working Group 3 aimed to develop clinical recommendations on advanced diagnostic imaging, soft and hard tissue augmentation, and management of complications.

Materials and methods: Recommendations were developed following the S2k-level guideline framework of the AWMF and a structured nominal group technique. The evidence base included two systematic reviews on clinician-reported outcomes (ClinROs) and patient-reported outcomes (PROs), supplemented by single-round international surveys of expert clinicians, patients, and cross-disciplinary experts. Survey content addressed diagnostics, treatment planning, clinical procedures, and maintenance care. Draft recommendations were discussed at the in-person consensus meeting in Boston (June 16-18, 2025) and finalized through anonymous plenary voting. Consensus thresholds were predefined as ≥ 75% but ≤ 95% agreement for consensus and > 95% agreement for strong consensus.

Results: Working Group 3 formulated four clinical recommendations spanning advanced diagnostic imaging, augmentation techniques, and complication management. All four recommendations reached consensus. Voting participation per recommendation ranged from 68 to 88 (mean 79) out of a possible 105 participants.

Conclusions: The Working Group 3 consensus statements offer practical guidance on surgical procedures and complication management in the rehabilitation of the edentulous maxilla. These recommendations are grounded in current evidence, interdisciplinary clinical practice, and patient perspectives. Furthermore, important evidence gaps, particularly in standardized patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs), long-term outcomes, and maintenance protocols, highlight key priorities for future clinical research.

目的：种植牙科临床指南第一次全球共识（GCCG）介绍了一个以证据为基础，以患者为中心的修复无牙上颌的框架。第三工作组的目标是制定关于先进诊断成像、软硬组织增强和并发症处理的临床建议。材料和方法：建议是根据AWMF的s2k级指导框架和结构化名义组技术制定的。证据基础包括对临床医生报告的结果（ClinROs）和患者报告的结果（PROs）的两项系统评价，并辅以对专家临床医生、患者和跨学科专家的单轮国际调查。调查内容涉及诊断、治疗计划、临床程序和维持护理。建议草案在波士顿举行的面对面共识会议（2025年6月16日至18日）上进行了讨论，并通过匿名全体投票最终确定。共识阈值预定义为≥75%，但共识阈值≤95%，强共识阈值为> 95%。结果：第三工作组制定了四项临床建议，涵盖先进的诊断成像、增强技术和并发症管理。四项建议均达成共识。在可能的105名参与者中，每个推荐的投票参与从68到88（平均79）不等。结论：第三工作组的共识声明为无牙上颌骨康复的外科手术和并发症处理提供了实用的指导。这些建议基于现有证据、跨学科临床实践和患者观点。此外，重要的证据差距，特别是在标准化的患者报告结果测量（PROMs）、长期结果和维持方案方面，突出了未来临床研究的关键优先事项。

{"title":"Consensus Report of Group 3 of the 1st Global Consensus for Clinical Guidelines for the Rehabilitation of the Edentulous Maxilla: Advanced Diagnostic Imaging, Augmentation Techniques, and Management of Complications.","authors":"Joseph Fiorellini, Guo-Hao Lin, Isabella Rocchietta, Sean Mojaver, Tara Aghaloo, Kang-Min Ahn, Bilal Al-Nawas, Maurício Araújo, Jamil Awad Shibli, James Chow, Marcelo Faveri, Tobias Fretwurst, Markus Hürzeler, Darnell Kaigler, Fouad Khoury, Sungtae Kim, Marcel F Kunrath, Hong-Chang Lai, Michel R Messora, Robert Sader, Muhammad H A Saleh, Junyu Shi, Simon Storgård Jensen, Tiziano Testori, István Urban, Yiqun Wu, Alvin Zad, Hom-Lay Wang, Christer Dahlin","doi":"10.1111/clr.70079","DOIUrl":"10.1111/clr.70079","url":null,"abstract":"Objectives: The 1st Global Consensus for Clinical Guidelines (GCCG) in Implant Dentistry introduced an evidence-based, patient-centered framework for rehabilitating the edentulous maxilla. Working Group 3 aimed to develop clinical recommendations on advanced diagnostic imaging, soft and hard tissue augmentation, and management of complications.Materials and methods: Recommendations were developed following the S2k-level guideline framework of the AWMF and a structured nominal group technique. The evidence base included two systematic reviews on clinician-reported outcomes (ClinROs) and patient-reported outcomes (PROs), supplemented by single-round international surveys of expert clinicians, patients, and cross-disciplinary experts. Survey content addressed diagnostics, treatment planning, clinical procedures, and maintenance care. Draft recommendations were discussed at the in-person consensus meeting in Boston (June 16-18, 2025) and finalized through anonymous plenary voting. Consensus thresholds were predefined as ≥ 75% but ≤ 95% agreement for consensus and > 95% agreement for strong consensus.Results: Working Group 3 formulated four clinical recommendations spanning advanced diagnostic imaging, augmentation techniques, and complication management. All four recommendations reached consensus. Voting participation per recommendation ranged from 68 to 88 (mean 79) out of a possible 105 participants.Conclusions: The Working Group 3 consensus statements offer practical guidance on surgical procedures and complication management in the rehabilitation of the edentulous maxilla. These recommendations are grounded in current evidence, interdisciplinary clinical practice, and patient perspectives. Furthermore, important evidence gaps, particularly in standardized patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs), long-term outcomes, and maintenance protocols, highlight key priorities for future clinical research.","PeriodicalId":10455,"journal":{"name":"Clinical Oral Implants Research","volume":"37 Suppl 30 ","pages":"S68-S80"},"PeriodicalIF":5.3,"publicationDate":"2026-02-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12930124/pdf/","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"147275589","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 0

Consensus Report of Group 1 of the 1st Global Consensus for Clinical Guidelines for the Rehabilitation of the Edentulous Maxilla: Number of Implants, Timing of Implant Placement and Loading. 第一届全球无牙上颌康复临床指南第一组共识报告：种植体数量、种植体放置时间和装载。

IF 5.3 1区医学 Q1 DENTISTRY, ORAL SURGERY & MEDICINE

Clinical Oral Implants Research

Pub Date : 2026-02-01 DOI: 10.1111/clr.70063

Nikos Donos, Ethan Ng, Claudio Mendes Pannuti, Giuseppe Alexandre Romito, Helena Cristina Oliveira Francisco, Samir Abou-Ayash, Gustavo Avila-Ortiz, Joao Manuel Mendez Carames, Paolo Casentini, Tali Chackartchi, Vivianne Chappuis, Stephen Chen, Paul Fugazzotto, William V Giannobile, Yoshiyuki Hagiwara, Adam Hamilton, Saso Ivanovski, Sergio Kahn, Joseph Kan, France Lambert, Robert Alan Levine, Jose Manuel Navarro, Turker Ornekol, Michael Payer, Todd Schoenbaum, Manish Kumar Singh, Sejal Thacker, Gil Alcoforado

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 1 aimed to formulate clinical recommendations on the number of implants required, timing of implant placement, and timing of loading.

Materials and methods: Group 1 followed the S2k-level guideline framework of the Association of the Scientific Medical Societies in Germany (AWMF), using a structured nominal group technique. The evidence base included three systematic reviews evaluating clinician-reported outcomes (ClinROs) and patient-reported outcomes (PROs), supplemented by structured single-round international surveys involving expert clinicians, patients, and cross-disciplinary experts. Survey content covered diagnostics, treatment planning, clinical procedures, and maintenance care. Draft recommendations were discussed during the in-person consensus meeting in Boston (June 16-18, 2025) and finalized through anonymous plenary voting. Consensus was defined as ≥ 75% and ≤ 95% agreement and strong consensus as > 95% agreement.

Results: Group 1 formulated 12 clinical recommendations across the workflow domains of diagnostic tools, treatment planning, and treatment procedure. During plenary voting, three of these recommendations reached strong consensus, and nine achieved consensus. The number of voters per recommendation ranged from 61 to 90, with an average of 83.

Conclusions: This consensus report provides structured, evidence-based recommendations on implant number, placement timing, and loading protocols for rehabilitation of the edentulous maxilla. These guidelines are intended to support individualized, patient-centered care while also identifying priority areas for future research.

目的：第一次全球种植牙临床指南共识（GCCG）介绍了一种创新的、以证据为基础的方法，以制定以患者为中心的、实用的无牙颌康复建议。在此框架下，第1组旨在制定关于所需种植体数量、种植体放置时间和加载时间的临床建议。材料和方法：第1组遵循德国科学医学学会协会（AWMF）的s2k级指导框架，采用结构化名义分组技术。证据基础包括三个系统综述，评估临床医生报告的结果（ClinROs）和患者报告的结果（PROs），辅以结构化的单轮国际调查，涉及专家临床医生、患者和跨学科专家。调查内容包括诊断、治疗计划、临床程序和维护护理。在波士顿举行的面对面共识会议（2025年6月16日至18日）上讨论了建议草案，并通过匿名全体投票最终确定。一致性定义为≥75%和≤95%的一致性，强一致性定义为> 95%的一致性。结果：第一组在诊断工具、治疗计划和治疗程序的工作流程领域制定了12项临床建议。在全体表决中，其中三项建议达成强烈协商一致，九项建议达成协商一致。每项推荐的投票人数从61人到90人不等，平均为83人。结论：本共识报告提供了结构化的、基于证据的关于种植体数量、放置时间和上颌无牙康复加载方案的建议。这些指南旨在支持个性化、以患者为中心的护理，同时也确定了未来研究的优先领域。

{"title":"Consensus Report of Group 1 of the 1st Global Consensus for Clinical Guidelines for the Rehabilitation of the Edentulous Maxilla: Number of Implants, Timing of Implant Placement and Loading.","authors":"Nikos Donos, Ethan Ng, Claudio Mendes Pannuti, Giuseppe Alexandre Romito, Helena Cristina Oliveira Francisco, Samir Abou-Ayash, Gustavo Avila-Ortiz, Joao Manuel Mendez Carames, Paolo Casentini, Tali Chackartchi, Vivianne Chappuis, Stephen Chen, Paul Fugazzotto, William V Giannobile, Yoshiyuki Hagiwara, Adam Hamilton, Saso Ivanovski, Sergio Kahn, Joseph Kan, France Lambert, Robert Alan Levine, Jose Manuel Navarro, Turker Ornekol, Michael Payer, Todd Schoenbaum, Manish Kumar Singh, Sejal Thacker, Gil Alcoforado","doi":"10.1111/clr.70063","DOIUrl":"10.1111/clr.70063","url":null,"abstract":"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 1 aimed to formulate clinical recommendations on the number of implants required, timing of implant placement, and timing of loading.Materials and methods: Group 1 followed the S2k-level guideline framework of the Association of the Scientific Medical Societies in Germany (AWMF), using a structured nominal group technique. The evidence base included three systematic reviews evaluating clinician-reported outcomes (ClinROs) and patient-reported outcomes (PROs), supplemented by structured single-round international surveys involving expert clinicians, patients, and cross-disciplinary experts. Survey content covered diagnostics, treatment planning, clinical procedures, and maintenance care. Draft recommendations were discussed during the in-person consensus meeting in Boston (June 16-18, 2025) and finalized through anonymous plenary voting. Consensus was defined as ≥ 75% and ≤ 95% agreement and strong consensus as > 95% agreement.Results: Group 1 formulated 12 clinical recommendations across the workflow domains of diagnostic tools, treatment planning, and treatment procedure. During plenary voting, three of these recommendations reached strong consensus, and nine achieved consensus. The number of voters per recommendation ranged from 61 to 90, with an average of 83.Conclusions: This consensus report provides structured, evidence-based recommendations on implant number, placement timing, and loading protocols for rehabilitation of the edentulous maxilla. These guidelines are intended to support individualized, patient-centered care while also identifying priority areas for future research.","PeriodicalId":10455,"journal":{"name":"Clinical Oral Implants Research","volume":"37 Suppl 30 ","pages":"S28-S48"},"PeriodicalIF":5.3,"publicationDate":"2026-02-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12930125/pdf/","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"147275599","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 0

1st Global Consensus for Clinical Guidelines for the Rehabilitation of the Edentulous Maxilla: Single-Round Survey on Implant-Supported Fixed and Removable Prostheses. 无牙上颌康复临床指南第一次全球共识：对种植体支持的固定和可移动假体的单轮调查。

IF 5.3 1区医学 Q1 DENTISTRY, ORAL SURGERY & MEDICINE

Clinical Oral Implants Research

Pub Date : 2026-02-01 DOI: 10.1111/clr.70027

Guo-Hao Lin, Franz J Strauss, Giulia Brunello, Charlotte Stilwell, Ronald E Jung, Ina Kopp, Frank Schwarz, Hom-Lay Wang

Objectives: This single-round survey on prosthodontic rehabilitation of the edentulous maxilla is one of four clinician surveys commissioned prior to the first Global Consensus for Clinical Guidelines (GCCG). Within the GCCG aim of refining treatment protocols and enhancing patient care, this survey gathered expert insights into best practices, challenges, and treatment outcomes for these complex restorative procedures.

Materials and methods: The 25-item survey was sent to 230 identified experts from 41 countries in October 2024. Participation in the survey was voluntary and without incentives. Informed consent was obtained at the beginning of the survey. All data were collected, stored, and processed anonymously.

Results: Of the 230 experts contacted, 123 accessed the survey and 121 provided consent and completed the questionnaire, resulting in a response rate of 52.6%. The survey responses identified 13 statements that reached consensus (> 75% but ≤ 95% agreement) and five that reached strong consensus (> 95% agreement). These 18 statements were derived from 6 items addressing the topics of anatomical landmarks for tooth positioning, preferred distal implant position, preferred minimum implant diameter, preferred retention method, relevant patient-reported outcomes, and relevant clinician-reported outcomes.

Conclusion: This study gathered valuable expert insights to inform a consensus development process for establishing clinical practice guidelines for management of the edentulous maxilla. The survey identified 18 statements from six items that reached consensus or strong consensus among survey respondents. The items not achieving consensus served to reflect real-world implant treatment strategies, identify literature gaps, and highlight any inconsistencies between expert consensus and current evidence.

目的：这项关于无牙上颌修复康复的单轮调查是第一次全球临床指南共识（GCCG）之前委托进行的四项临床医生调查之一。在GCCG完善治疗方案和加强患者护理的目标下，本调查收集了专家对这些复杂恢复性手术的最佳实践、挑战和治疗结果的见解。材料和方法：2024年10月向41个国家的230名专家进行了25项调查。参与调查是自愿的，没有奖励。在调查开始时获得知情同意。所有数据的收集、存储和处理都是匿名的。结果：在联系的230位专家中，123位参与了调查，121位同意并填写了问卷，回复率为52.6%。调查结果确定了13个达成共识的陈述（> 75%但≤95%一致）和5个达成强烈共识的陈述（> 95%一致）。这18个陈述来自6个条目，涉及牙齿定位的解剖标志、首选种植体远端位置、首选种植体最小直径、首选固位方法、相关患者报告的结果和相关临床报告的结果。结论：本研究收集了有价值的专家见解，为建立无牙颌治疗的临床实践指南提供了共识。该调查从6个项目中选出了18项意见，受访者达成了共识或强烈共识。未达成共识的项目反映了现实世界的种植治疗策略，确定了文献空白，并突出了专家共识与当前证据之间的不一致。

{"title":"1st Global Consensus for Clinical Guidelines for the Rehabilitation of the Edentulous Maxilla: Single-Round Survey on Implant-Supported Fixed and Removable Prostheses.","authors":"Guo-Hao Lin, Franz J Strauss, Giulia Brunello, Charlotte Stilwell, Ronald E Jung, Ina Kopp, Frank Schwarz, Hom-Lay Wang","doi":"10.1111/clr.70027","DOIUrl":"10.1111/clr.70027","url":null,"abstract":"Objectives: This single-round survey on prosthodontic rehabilitation of the edentulous maxilla is one of four clinician surveys commissioned prior to the first Global Consensus for Clinical Guidelines (GCCG). Within the GCCG aim of refining treatment protocols and enhancing patient care, this survey gathered expert insights into best practices, challenges, and treatment outcomes for these complex restorative procedures.Materials and methods: The 25-item survey was sent to 230 identified experts from 41 countries in October 2024. Participation in the survey was voluntary and without incentives. Informed consent was obtained at the beginning of the survey. All data were collected, stored, and processed anonymously.Results: Of the 230 experts contacted, 123 accessed the survey and 121 provided consent and completed the questionnaire, resulting in a response rate of 52.6%. The survey responses identified 13 statements that reached consensus (> 75% but ≤ 95% agreement) and five that reached strong consensus (> 95% agreement). These 18 statements were derived from 6 items addressing the topics of anatomical landmarks for tooth positioning, preferred distal implant position, preferred minimum implant diameter, preferred retention method, relevant patient-reported outcomes, and relevant clinician-reported outcomes.Conclusion: This study gathered valuable expert insights to inform a consensus development process for establishing clinical practice guidelines for management of the edentulous maxilla. The survey identified 18 statements from six items that reached consensus or strong consensus among survey respondents. The items not achieving consensus served to reflect real-world implant treatment strategies, identify literature gaps, and highlight any inconsistencies between expert consensus and current evidence.","PeriodicalId":10455,"journal":{"name":"Clinical Oral Implants Research","volume":"37 Suppl 30 ","pages":"S121-S134"},"PeriodicalIF":5.3,"publicationDate":"2026-02-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12930127/pdf/","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"147275607","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 0

Patient- and Clinician-Reported Outcomes and Outcome Measures Evaluating Maxillary Full Arch Fixed Prostheses Supported by Different Numbers of Implants: A Systematic Review. 患者和临床报告的结果和结果测量评估上颌全弓固定假体由不同数量的种植体：系统回顾。

IF 5.3 1区医学 Q1 DENTISTRY, ORAL SURGERY & MEDICINE

Clinical Oral Implants Research

Pub Date : 2026-02-01 DOI: 10.1111/clr.70020

Helena Francisco, Catarina Pinto, Giuseppe A Romito, Claudio M Panutti, Duarte Marques, João Caramês

Objectives: This systematic review aimed to evaluate both patient-reported outcomes (PROs) and clinician-reported outcomes (ClinROs) and their outcome measures (PROMs and CROMs), related to the number of implants used for an implant-supported full arch fixed dental prosthesis (IFADPs) in the edentulous maxilla.

Materials and methods: Literature search was conducted in five electronic databases from January 2014 to June 2024. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and prospective clinical studies reporting the number of implants, PROs, ClinROs, PROMs, and CROMs were included. Screening, data extraction, and reporting followed the PRISMA guidelines for systematic reviews. The Cochrane risk of bias tool was used to assess RCTs; ROBINS-I tool was used for non-RCTs.

Results: Out of 1466 articles, 31 full-text articles were assessed for eligibility; 11 were included. The studies reported PROs such as oral health-related quality of life, satisfaction, postoperative symptoms, and comfort. These were assessed using various tools, including Oral Health Impact Profile questionnaires and visual or verbal rating scales. ClinROs included surgical time, implant survival, insertion torque, complications, and marginal bone loss. These were measured through clinical examinations, radiographic assessments, and standard indices. RCTs showed low to high risk of bias, and prospective studies demonstrated a moderate-to-serious risk of bias.

Conclusions: High implant and prosthesis survival rates, enhanced quality of life, mild postoperative symptoms, and increased patient satisfaction indicate favorable outcomes for IFADPs in the edentulous maxilla. However, evidence linking the PROs and ClinROs in relation to the number of implants used for IFADPs in the edentulous maxilla remains limited.

目的：本系统综述旨在评估患者报告的结果（PROs）和临床报告的结果（ClinROs）及其结果测量（PROMs和CROMs），这些结果与用于无牙颌种植体支持的全弓固定义齿（IFADPs）的种植体数量有关。材料与方法：检索2014年1月- 2024年6月5个电子数据库的文献。随机对照试验（rct）和前瞻性临床研究报告了种植体、PROs、ClinROs、prom和crom的数量。筛选、数据提取和报告遵循PRISMA指南进行系统评价。采用Cochrane偏倚风险工具对随机对照试验进行评估；非随机对照试验采用ROBINS-I工具。结果：在1466篇文章中，31篇全文文章被评估为合格；11人入选。这些研究报告了诸如口腔健康相关生活质量、满意度、术后症状和舒适度等PROs。使用各种工具进行评估，包括口腔健康影响调查问卷和视觉或口头评定量表。ClinROs包括手术时间、种植体存活、插入扭矩、并发症和边缘骨丢失。这些是通过临床检查、放射学评估和标准指标来测量的。随机对照试验显示低到高的偏倚风险，前瞻性研究显示中等到严重的偏倚风险。结论：种植体和假体存活率高，生活质量提高，术后症状轻微，患者满意度提高，表明无牙上颌IFADPs治疗效果良好。然而，将PROs和ClinROs与无牙上颌用于IFADPs的种植体数量联系起来的证据仍然有限。

{"title":"Patient- and Clinician-Reported Outcomes and Outcome Measures Evaluating Maxillary Full Arch Fixed Prostheses Supported by Different Numbers of Implants: A Systematic Review.","authors":"Helena Francisco, Catarina Pinto, Giuseppe A Romito, Claudio M Panutti, Duarte Marques, João Caramês","doi":"10.1111/clr.70020","DOIUrl":"10.1111/clr.70020","url":null,"abstract":"Objectives: This systematic review aimed to evaluate both patient-reported outcomes (PROs) and clinician-reported outcomes (ClinROs) and their outcome measures (PROMs and CROMs), related to the number of implants used for an implant-supported full arch fixed dental prosthesis (IFADPs) in the edentulous maxilla.Materials and methods: Literature search was conducted in five electronic databases from January 2014 to June 2024. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and prospective clinical studies reporting the number of implants, PROs, ClinROs, PROMs, and CROMs were included. Screening, data extraction, and reporting followed the PRISMA guidelines for systematic reviews. The Cochrane risk of bias tool was used to assess RCTs; ROBINS-I tool was used for non-RCTs.Results: Out of 1466 articles, 31 full-text articles were assessed for eligibility; 11 were included. The studies reported PROs such as oral health-related quality of life, satisfaction, postoperative symptoms, and comfort. These were assessed using various tools, including Oral Health Impact Profile questionnaires and visual or verbal rating scales. ClinROs included surgical time, implant survival, insertion torque, complications, and marginal bone loss. These were measured through clinical examinations, radiographic assessments, and standard indices. RCTs showed low to high risk of bias, and prospective studies demonstrated a moderate-to-serious risk of bias.Conclusions: High implant and prosthesis survival rates, enhanced quality of life, mild postoperative symptoms, and increased patient satisfaction indicate favorable outcomes for IFADPs in the edentulous maxilla. However, evidence linking the PROs and ClinROs in relation to the number of implants used for IFADPs in the edentulous maxilla remains limited.","PeriodicalId":10455,"journal":{"name":"Clinical Oral Implants Research","volume":"37 Suppl 30 ","pages":"S273-S301"},"PeriodicalIF":5.3,"publicationDate":"2026-02-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12930126/pdf/","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"147275652","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 0

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. 第一届无牙上颌康复临床指南全球共识第二组共识报告：颧、标准长度和短种植体支持假体。

IF 5.3 1区医学 Q1 DENTISTRY, ORAL SURGERY & MEDICINE

Clinical Oral Implants Research

Pub Date : 2026-02-01 DOI: 10.1111/clr.70081

Kevser Pala, Jörg Neugebauer, Daniel Buser, Giulia Brunello, Krzysztof Chmielewski, Ramesh Chowdhary, Luca Cordaro, Ryuji Hosokawa, Ole Jensen, Ui-Won Jung, Ye Lin, Nikos Mardas, Aleksa Markovic, Nikos Mattheos, Eitan Mijiritsky, Iva Milinkovic, Leandro Nunes, Waldemar D Polido, Mariano Sanz, Frank Schwarz, Anton Sculean, Andreas Stavropoulos, Franz J Strauss, Takashi Sumi, Florian M Thieringer, Daniel S Thoma, Yuseung Yi, German O Gallucci

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.

目的：第一次全球种植牙临床指南共识（GCCG）介绍了一种创新的、以证据为基础的方法，以制定以患者为中心的、实用的无牙颌康复建议。在此框架下，第2组旨在制定在萎缩上颌使用短的、标准长度的颧植入物的临床建议。材料和方法：第二组遵循德国科学医学学会协会（AWMF）的s2k级指导框架，采用结构化名义组技术。证据基础包括两项系统综述，综合了患者报告的结果（PROs）、临床报告的结果（ClinROs）及其各自的测量方法，以及涉及专家临床医生、患者和跨学科专家的单轮国际调查。在波士顿举行的面对面共识会议（2025年6月16日至18日）上讨论了建议草案，并通过匿名全体投票最终确定。共识阈值预定义为共识≥75%和≤95%，强共识阈值为> 95%。结果：第二组参与者制定了6项临床建议，涉及患者选择、手术治疗方案（短、标准长度和颧骨植入物）和治疗计划。6项建议均达成共识。结论：第2组共识为在萎缩上颌使用短、标准长度和颧骨种植体提供了实用指导，平衡了手术复杂性、假体可行性和以患者为中心的护理。剩余的证据缺口——特别是关于标准化的结果集、加载方案、颧种植体的假体策略、短种植体用于全弓修复和维持框架的使用——应该在未来的研究中优先考虑。

{"title":"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.","authors":"Kevser Pala, Jörg Neugebauer, Daniel Buser, Giulia Brunello, Krzysztof Chmielewski, Ramesh Chowdhary, Luca Cordaro, Ryuji Hosokawa, Ole Jensen, Ui-Won Jung, Ye Lin, Nikos Mardas, Aleksa Markovic, Nikos Mattheos, Eitan Mijiritsky, Iva Milinkovic, Leandro Nunes, Waldemar D Polido, Mariano Sanz, Frank Schwarz, Anton Sculean, Andreas Stavropoulos, Franz J Strauss, Takashi Sumi, Florian M Thieringer, Daniel S Thoma, Yuseung Yi, German O Gallucci","doi":"10.1111/clr.70081","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1111/clr.70081","url":null,"abstract":"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.","PeriodicalId":10455,"journal":{"name":"Clinical Oral Implants Research","volume":"37 Suppl 30 ","pages":"S49-S67"},"PeriodicalIF":5.3,"publicationDate":"2026-02-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"147275608","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 0

Consensus Report of Group 4 of the 1st Global Consensus for Clinical Guidelines for the Rehabilitation of the Edentulous Maxilla: Conventional Dentures, Implant Overdentures and Implant-Supported Fixed Dental Prostheses. 上颌无牙修复临床指南第一届全球共识第4组共识报告：常规义齿、种植覆盖义齿和种植支撑固定义齿

IF 5.3 1区医学 Q1 DENTISTRY, ORAL SURGERY & MEDICINE

Clinical Oral Implants Research

Pub Date : 2026-02-01 DOI: 10.1111/clr.70069

Charlotte Stilwell, Ronald E Jung, Florian Beuer, Giulia Brunello, Jae-Kook Cha, Jeanette Chua Keng Ling, Donald A Curtis, Karim El-Kholy, Brian Goodacre, Lisa Heitz-Mayfield, Mohit Kheur, Sunjai Kim, Hisatomo Kondo, Purnima Kumar, Alejandro Lanis, David Norre, Bjarni Pjetursson, Srinivasa Rao Bhasmey, Irena Sailer, Misi Si, Amerian Sones, Franz J Strauss, Stefan Wolfart, Nicola U Zitzmann

Objectives: The 1st Global Consensus for Clinical Guidelines (GCCG) in Implant Dentistry introduced an innovative, evidence-based, patient-centred approach to developing practical recommendations for the rehabilitation of the edentulous maxilla. Within this framework, Group 4 focused on formulating clinical recommendations for the planning and delivery of conventional dentures (CD), implant overdentures (IOD) and implant-supported fixed complete dentures (IFCD) for patients with an edentulous maxilla.

Materials and methods: Group 4 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 synthesising patient-reported outcomes (PROs) and clinician-reported outcomes (ClinROs) and their respective measures in patients with an edentulous maxilla. In addition, single-round international surveys were conducted involving expert clinicians, patients and cross-disciplinary experts. Draft recommendations were developed during the in-person consensus meeting in Boston (June 16-18, 2025) and finalised through anonymous plenary voting. Consensus thresholds were predefined at ≥ 75% and ≤ 95% agreement for a consensus and > 95% agreement for a strong consensus.

Results: Group 4 participants formulated 14 clinical recommendations covering five stages of treatment: (i) patient selection, (ii) diagnostics, (iii) treatment planning, (iv) treatment procedures and (v) maintenance. During plenary voting, 6 recommendations reached consensus and eight achieved strong consensus. Voting participation per recommendation ranged from 60 to 84 participants (mean 75).

Conclusions: Group 4 consensus statements provide structured guidance on the use of removable and fixed implant-supported dental prostheses for the rehabilitation of the edentulous maxilla. The recommendations reflect current evidence, expert opinion on clinical practice across disciplines and patient perspectives. Key evidence gaps-especially regarding standardised PROMs, long-term outcomes and maintenance protocols-identify priorities for future clinical research.

目的：第一份全球种植牙临床指南共识（GCCG）介绍了一种创新的、以证据为基础的、以患者为中心的方法，以制定无牙颌康复的实用建议。在此框架下，第4组的重点是为无牙上颌患者制定常规义齿（CD）、种植覆盖义齿（IOD）和种植支撑固定全口义齿（IFCD）的计划和交付的临床建议。材料和方法：第4组遵循德国科学医学学会协会（AWMF）的s2k级指导框架，采用结构化名义分组技术。证据基础包括两项系统综述，综合了无牙颌患者的患者报告结果（PROs）和临床报告结果（ClinROs）及其各自的措施。此外，还进行了包括专家临床医生、患者和跨学科专家在内的单轮国际调查。建议草案是在波士顿举行的面对面协商一致会议（2025年6月16日至18日）期间制定的，并通过匿名全体投票最终确定。共识阈值预定义为共识≥75%和≤95%，强共识阈值为> 95%。结果：第4组参与者制定了14项临床建议，涵盖5个治疗阶段：(i)患者选择，（ii）诊断，（iii）治疗计划，（iv）治疗程序和(v)维持。在全体表决中，6项建议达成共识，8项建议达成强烈共识。每个推荐的投票参与人数从60到84人不等（平均75人）。结论：第4组共识声明为可移动和固定种植体支持的义齿修复无牙颌提供了结构化的指导。这些建议反映了当前的证据、跨学科临床实践的专家意见和患者的观点。关键的证据缺口——特别是关于标准化PROMs、长期结果和维护方案——确定了未来临床研究的优先事项。

{"title":"Consensus Report of Group 4 of the 1st Global Consensus for Clinical Guidelines for the Rehabilitation of the Edentulous Maxilla: Conventional Dentures, Implant Overdentures and Implant-Supported Fixed Dental Prostheses.","authors":"Charlotte Stilwell, Ronald E Jung, Florian Beuer, Giulia Brunello, Jae-Kook Cha, Jeanette Chua Keng Ling, Donald A Curtis, Karim El-Kholy, Brian Goodacre, Lisa Heitz-Mayfield, Mohit Kheur, Sunjai Kim, Hisatomo Kondo, Purnima Kumar, Alejandro Lanis, David Norre, Bjarni Pjetursson, Srinivasa Rao Bhasmey, Irena Sailer, Misi Si, Amerian Sones, Franz J Strauss, Stefan Wolfart, Nicola U Zitzmann","doi":"10.1111/clr.70069","DOIUrl":"10.1111/clr.70069","url":null,"abstract":"Objectives: The 1st Global Consensus for Clinical Guidelines (GCCG) in Implant Dentistry introduced an innovative, evidence-based, patient-centred approach to developing practical recommendations for the rehabilitation of the edentulous maxilla. Within this framework, Group 4 focused on formulating clinical recommendations for the planning and delivery of conventional dentures (CD), implant overdentures (IOD) and implant-supported fixed complete dentures (IFCD) for patients with an edentulous maxilla.Materials and methods: Group 4 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 synthesising patient-reported outcomes (PROs) and clinician-reported outcomes (ClinROs) and their respective measures in patients with an edentulous maxilla. In addition, single-round international surveys were conducted involving expert clinicians, patients and cross-disciplinary experts. Draft recommendations were developed during the in-person consensus meeting in Boston (June 16-18, 2025) and finalised through anonymous plenary voting. Consensus thresholds were predefined at ≥ 75% and ≤ 95% agreement for a consensus and > 95% agreement for a strong consensus.Results: Group 4 participants formulated 14 clinical recommendations covering five stages of treatment: (i) patient selection, (ii) diagnostics, (iii) treatment planning, (iv) treatment procedures and (v) maintenance. During plenary voting, 6 recommendations reached consensus and eight achieved strong consensus. Voting participation per recommendation ranged from 60 to 84 participants (mean 75).Conclusions: Group 4 consensus statements provide structured guidance on the use of removable and fixed implant-supported dental prostheses for the rehabilitation of the edentulous maxilla. The recommendations reflect current evidence, expert opinion on clinical practice across disciplines and patient perspectives. Key evidence gaps-especially regarding standardised PROMs, long-term outcomes and maintenance protocols-identify priorities for future clinical research.","PeriodicalId":10455,"journal":{"name":"Clinical Oral Implants Research","volume":"37 Suppl 30 ","pages":"S81-S107"},"PeriodicalIF":5.3,"publicationDate":"2026-02-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12930131/pdf/","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"147275611","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 0

Patient-Reported Outcome Measures (PROMs) and Clinician-Reported Outcomes (ClinROs) in Sinus Floor Elevation for Implant Rehab in the Edentulous Maxilla: A Systematic Review and COSMIN Analysis. 无牙上颌窦底抬高种植体康复的患者报告结果测量（PROMs）和临床报告结果（ClinROs）：系统回顾和COSMIN分析。

IF 5.3 1区医学 Q1 DENTISTRY, ORAL SURGERY & MEDICINE

Clinical Oral Implants Research

Pub Date : 2026-02-01 DOI: 10.1111/clr.14457

Hamoun Sabri, Muhammad H A Saleh, Jacob Martin Zimmer, Frank Schwarz, Hom-Lay Wang

Objectives: To evaluate the current patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) and clinician-reported outcomes (ClinROs) following sinus floor elevation (SFE) for implant-based rehabilitation in the fully edentulous maxilla.

Methods: A systematic search was conducted across PubMed, EMBASE, Scopus, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, covering publications from 2013 to 2024. We included prospective studies assessing PROMs and ClinROs. The COSMIN checklist was used to evaluate PROMs quality.

Results: Eighteen studies met the inclusion criteria, comprising randomized controlled trials, controlled clinical trials, and case series. Fourteen distinct ClinROs were identified, predominantly implant survival (61.11%) and peri-implant bone-level changes (50%). Conversely, ClinROs directly associated with SFE procedures-such as maxillary sinus bone height/volume changes (27.7%) and sinus membrane perforation (10.5%)-were underreported. Prosthetic outcomes were addressed in 11.11% of studies, and PROMs in 50% of the studies. Seven different PROMs were identified, with a focus on masticatory function and overall satisfaction. COSMIN analysis revealed that OHIP-49 and the denture satisfaction questionnaire (DSQ) were the most robust PROMs, scoring "very good" across multiple domains. Patients' overall satisfaction and complaint-based PROMs lacked validation.

Conclusions: Current reporting of ClinROs emphasizes implant-related metrics, while outcomes directly related to SFE are inconsistently reported. Validated PROMs are needed to ensure consistency and reliability in outcome assessment. OHIP-49 and DSQ demonstrated strong psychometric properties and are recommended as core PROMs. Future studies should incorporate early and long-term PROMs and adopt a standardized approach to outcome reporting.

目的：评估目前患者报告的结果测量（PROMs）和临床报告的结果（ClinROs）后窦底提升（SFE）在全无牙上颌种植体康复。方法：系统检索PubMed、EMBASE、Scopus和Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials，涵盖2013年至2024年的出版物。我们纳入了评估PROMs和ClinROs的前瞻性研究。采用COSMIN检查表对PROMs质量进行评价。结果：18项研究符合纳入标准，包括随机对照试验、对照临床试验和病例系列。鉴定出14种不同的ClinROs，主要是种植体存活（61.11%）和种植体周围骨水平变化（50%）。相反，与SFE手术直接相关的ClinROs——如上颌窦骨高度/体积变化（27.7%）和窦膜穿孔（10.5%）——被低估了。11.11%的研究处理了假体的结果，50%的研究处理了PROMs。七种不同的PROMs被确定，重点是咀嚼功能和整体满意度。COSMIN分析显示，OHIP-49和义齿满意度问卷（DSQ）是最可靠的健康评估指标，在多个领域得分均为“非常好”。患者总体满意度和基于投诉的prom缺乏验证。结论：目前报道的ClinROs强调与种植体相关的指标，而与SFE直接相关的结果报道不一致。需要经过验证的prom来确保结果评估的一致性和可靠性。OHIP-49和DSQ表现出较强的心理测量特性，被推荐为核心prom。今后的研究应纳入早期和长期的prom，并对结果报告采取标准化的方法。

{"title":"Patient-Reported Outcome Measures (PROMs) and Clinician-Reported Outcomes (ClinROs) in Sinus Floor Elevation for Implant Rehab in the Edentulous Maxilla: A Systematic Review and COSMIN Analysis.","authors":"Hamoun Sabri, Muhammad H A Saleh, Jacob Martin Zimmer, Frank Schwarz, Hom-Lay Wang","doi":"10.1111/clr.14457","DOIUrl":"10.1111/clr.14457","url":null,"abstract":"Objectives: To evaluate the current patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) and clinician-reported outcomes (ClinROs) following sinus floor elevation (SFE) for implant-based rehabilitation in the fully edentulous maxilla.Methods: A systematic search was conducted across PubMed, EMBASE, Scopus, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, covering publications from 2013 to 2024. We included prospective studies assessing PROMs and ClinROs. The COSMIN checklist was used to evaluate PROMs quality.Results: Eighteen studies met the inclusion criteria, comprising randomized controlled trials, controlled clinical trials, and case series. Fourteen distinct ClinROs were identified, predominantly implant survival (61.11%) and peri-implant bone-level changes (50%). Conversely, ClinROs directly associated with SFE procedures-such as maxillary sinus bone height/volume changes (27.7%) and sinus membrane perforation (10.5%)-were underreported. Prosthetic outcomes were addressed in 11.11% of studies, and PROMs in 50% of the studies. Seven different PROMs were identified, with a focus on masticatory function and overall satisfaction. COSMIN analysis revealed that OHIP-49 and the denture satisfaction questionnaire (DSQ) were the most robust PROMs, scoring \"very good\" across multiple domains. Patients' overall satisfaction and complaint-based PROMs lacked validation.Conclusions: Current reporting of ClinROs emphasizes implant-related metrics, while outcomes directly related to SFE are inconsistently reported. Validated PROMs are needed to ensure consistency and reliability in outcome assessment. OHIP-49 and DSQ demonstrated strong psychometric properties and are recommended as core PROMs. Future studies should incorporate early and long-term PROMs and adopt a standardized approach to outcome reporting.","PeriodicalId":10455,"journal":{"name":"Clinical Oral Implants Research","volume":"37 Suppl 30 ","pages":"S346-S371"},"PeriodicalIF":5.3,"publicationDate":"2026-02-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12930132/pdf/","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"147275686","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 0