Patient- and Clinician-Reported Outcomes and Outcome Measures for Edentulous Maxilla Rehabilitated With Implant-Assisted Overdentures: A Systematic Review

Abstract

Aim To identify patient- and clinician-reported outcomes (PROs and ClinROs) and methods of assessment in clinical trials involving short and/or standard-length and/or zygomatic implants supporting maxillary implant overdentures (IODs). Materials and Methods A systematic search was conducted in PubMed, EMBASE, Scopus, Web of Science CENTRAL, and National clinical trial register for articles published between January 1, 2014, and March 23, 2024. Studies that included PROs and ClinROs for implant therapy in patients with edentulous maxillae were eligible, and study quality was appraised using the Cochrane Risk of Bias 2 tool, Newcastle-Ottawa Scale, or Joanna Briggs Institute Critical tool. Results A total of 2331 articles were screened, resulting in 21 studies representing 14 patient cohorts with 462 participants and 2140 implants. Two studies used short implants (6 mm) with standard-length implants, while the remaining 19 studies focused exclusively on standard-length implants (7-14 mm); none included zygomatic implants. Patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) varied widely: Oral Health Impact Profile questionnaires and visual analogue scales were each used in eight studies, and eleven studies relied on unstandardized questionnaires. Implant survival rate was the most frequently used ClinRO, included in all but one study. Subjective ClinROs based on clinician perception were absent in all studies. Conclusions Although PROMs were frequently employed in clinical trials, the lack of standardization hinders meaningful comparisons across studies. While objective ClinROs were commonly reported, subjective ClinROs reflecting clinicians' perceptions were notably absent.