Functional outcomes for clinical evaluation of implant restorations.

The functional outcomes related to treating patients afflicted with tooth loss are an important hallmark in substantiating prosthodontic intervention. The Oral Rehabilitation Outcomes Network (ORONet) conducted two international workshops to develop a core set of outcome measures, including a functional domain. The process followed the general format used in the Outcome Measures in Rheumatology (OMERACT) workshops to develop consensus for clinical outcome measures in arthritis research, which included: developing a comprehensive list of potential outcomes in the literature; submitting them to a filter for validity, clinical discrimination, and feasibility; and ranking those measures meeting all the filter criteria for relative value. The search was conducted to include functional assessments of speech, swallowing, mastication, nutrition, sensation, and motor function as they relate to dental implant therapies. This literature review surveyed 173 papers that produced some result of these descriptors in the functional domain. Of these, 67 papers reported on functional assessments and further defined objective and subjective outcomes. Many of these results were patient-perceived improvements in function, while others were objective assessments based on established methodologies and instruments. Objective evaluations of masticatory function and speech may meet criteria for validity and discriminability for selected interventions, but are generally not feasible for routine use in clinical care settings. The current recommendation is to employ a well-validated survey instrument that covers mastication and speech, such as the Oral Health Impact Profile (OHIP-14, short form), recognizing that patient perceptions of function may differ from objective ability.

Psychologic outcomes in implant prosthodontics.

Consensus regarding outcomes of the treatment of tooth loss, especially the psychologic outcomes, is needed to guide discovery of best practices and enable a better understanding of patient management for this chronic condition. This paper presents the findings of the ORONet Psychological Working Group for prosthodontics and aims to identify psychologic outcomes with properties deemed critical to meet clinical trial and clinical practice needs for the future. References obtained using a PubMed/Medline search were reviewed for clinical outcomes measures of interest. Clinical outcomes measures were judged relative to the criteria of truth, discrimination, and feasibility. Of the psychologic outcome measures identified in this systematic review, only the OHIP-14 was thought to be suitable for use in general practice and multi-institutional outcome registries and clinical trials. Development of clinically useful psychologic outcomes for future use could benefit from developmental methods and tools outlined in the patient-related outcomes field of clinical care.

Economic outcomes in prosthodontics.

PURPOSE: A systematic literature review was conducted to identify the types of economic measures currently used in implant prosthodontics and determine the degree to which cost of care is considered in the context of any positive outcome of the care provided. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A literature search was conducted using the following set of terms plus some additional hand searching: "dental implants" (Mesh) AND ("cost") OR "maintenance" OR "healthcare policy" OR "access to care" OR "third party" OR "economic") AND (("1995/01/01"[PDat]:'2009/12/31"[PDat]) AND (Humans[Mesh]) AND (English[lang])). RESULTS: After a review of the 466 titles and abstracts identified by the search, 18 articles were accepted for further consideration, as some attempt at economic outcome measures was made. An additional four articles were identified by hand searching. The 22 accepted articles were grouped into four basic categories: (1) measure of costs of treatment (direct, indirect, and maintenance costs), (2) cost-effectiveness mathematical modeling applied to simulate the lifetime paths and cost of treatment, (3) cost-effectiveness analysis/cost minimization, and (4) willingness-to-pay, willingness-to-accept. Attempts at determining the costs of treatment varied widely. When the OMERACT filters were applied to the various measures it was felt that discrimination and/or feasibility was a problem for most of the current economic outcome measures. CONCLUSIONS: Measures of cost-benefit, cost-effectiveness, and cost-utility are currently the gold standard; however, feasibility of such analyses is an issue. Collaboration with health economists to guide future research is highly recommended.