Objectives The aim of Working Group 3 was to focus on three topics that were assessed using patient‐reported outcome measures (PROMs). These topics included the following: (a) the aesthetics of tooth and implant‐supported fixed dental prostheses focusing on partially edentulous patients, (b) a comparison of fixed and removable implant‐retained prostheses for edentulous populations, and (c) immediate versus early/conventional loading of immediately placed implants in partially edentate patients. PROMs include ratings of satisfaction and oral health‐related quality of life (QHRQoL), as well as other indicators, that is, pain, general health‐related quality of life (e.g., SF‐36). Materials and methods The Consensus Conference Group 3 participants discussed the findings of the three systematic review manuscripts. Following comprehensive discussions, participants developed consensus statements and recommendations that were then discussed in larger plenary sessions. Following this, any necessary modifications were made and approved. Results Patients were very satisfied with the aesthetics of implant‐supported fixed dental prostheses and the surrounding mucosa. Implant neck design, restorative material, or use of a provisional restoration did not influence patients’ ratings. Edentulous patients highly rate both removable and fixed implant‐supported prostheses. However, they rate their ability to maintain their oral hygiene significantly higher with the removable prosthesis. Both immediate provisionalization and conventional loading receive positive patient‐reported outcomes. Conclusions Patient‐reported outcome measures should be gathered in every clinical study in which the outcomes of oral rehabilitation with dental implants are investigated. PROMs, such as patients’ satisfaction and QHRQoL, should supplement other clinical parameters in our clinical definition of success.

Objectives:The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to summarize the existing evidence on patient-reported aesthetic outcome measures (PROMs) of implant-supported, relative to tooth-supported fixed dental prostheses. Material and Methods:In April 2017, two reviewers independently searched the Medline (PubMed), EMBASE, and Cochrane electronic databases, focusing on studies including patient-reported aesthetic outcomes of implant-and tooth-supported fixed dental prostheses (FDPs). Human studies with a mean follow-up period of at least 1 year, a minimum of ten patients, and English, German, or French publication were included. For the comparison of subgroups, random-effects meta-regression for aggregate-level data was used. Results:The systematic search for implant-supported prostheses focusing on patientreported outcomes identified 2,675 titles, which were screened by two independent authors. Fifty full-text articles were analyzed, and finally, 16 publications (including 19 relevant study cohorts) were included. For tooth-supported prostheses, no studies could be included. A total of 816 implant-supported reconstructions were analyzed by patients.Overall aesthetic evaluation by the patients' visual analogue scale (VAS) rating was high in implant-supported FDPs (median: 90.3; min-max: 80.0-94.0) and the surrounding mucosa (median: 84.7; min-max: 73.0-92.0). Individual restorative materials, implant neck design (i.e., tissue or bone level type implants), and the use of a fixed provisional had no effect on patients' ratings of the definitive implant-supported FDPs. Conclusions:Aesthetics is an important patient-reported measure, which lacks in standardized methods; however, patients' satisfaction was high for implantsupported FDPs and the surrounding mucosa.

No abstract

Objectives New generation intraoral scanners are promoted to be suitable for digital scans of long-span edentulous spaces and completely edentulous arches; however, the evidence is lacking. The current study evaluated the accuracy of intraoral scanning (IOS) in partially and completely edentulous arch models and analyzed the influence of operator experience on accuracy. Materials and methods Four different resin models (completely and partially edentulous maxilla and mandible) were scanned, using a new generation IOS device (n = 20 each). Ten scans of each model were performed by an IOS-experienced and an inexperienced operator. An industrial high-precision scanner was employed to obtain reference scans. IOS files of each modeloperator combination, their respective reference scan files (n = 10 each; total = 80), as well as the IOS files from each model generated by the same operator, were superimposed (n = 45; total = 360) to calculate trueness and precision. An ANOVA for mixed models and post hoc t tests for mixed models were used to assess group-wise differences (α = 0.05). Results The median overall trueness and precision were 24.2 μm (IQR 20.7-27.4 μm) and 18.3 μm (IQR 14.4-22.1 μm), respectively. The scans of the inexperienced operator had significantly higher trueness in the edentulous mandibular model (p = 0.0001) and higher precision in the edentulous maxillary model (p = 0.0004). Conclusion The accuracy of IOS for partially and completely edentulous arches in in vitro settings was high. Experience with IOS had small influence on the accuracy of the scans. Clinical relevance IOS with the tested new generation intraoral scanner may be suitable for the fabrication of removable dentures regardless of clinician's experience in IOS.