Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25358599›Full record

SynthesisHealth and quality of life outcomes2014

Patients' expectations to dental implant: a systematic review of the literature.

Jie Yao, Hua Tang, Xiao-Li Gao, Colman McGrath, Nikos Mattheos

Registry-linked trialAbstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Health and quality of life outcomes, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT04873635 (Patient's Expectation and Satisfaction of Implant-supported Prostheses After Excision of Pathological Jaw Lesions), which is not on this map. Cited by 25 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
25citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

NCT04873635 completednot on this map

Patient's Expectation and Satisfaction of Implant-supported Prostheses After Excision of Pathological Jaw Lesions: A Prospective Follow-up Study

TypeobservationalSponsorThe University of Hong KongRan2003 to 2019Enrolled31ConditionsMissing TeethArmsImplant support prostheses
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

25 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. How peoples' ratings of dental implant treatment change over time?Quality of life research : an international journal of quality of life aspects of treatment, care and rehabilitation · 2020
    Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors.

Jie Yao
Hua Tang
Xiao-Li Gao
Colman McGrath
Nikos Mattheos

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveTo examine the current literature on the impact of patients' expectations on treatment outcomes or final patient satisfaction and to identify the theoretical frameworks, study designs and measurement instruments which have been employed to assess patients' expectations within implant dentistry.

methodsA structured literature search of four databases Pubmed, Cochrane, Web of Science and PsychINFO was conducted following PRISMA guidelines. Any type of literature published in English discussing the topic of 'patients expectations' in oral health were identified and further screened. Studies reporting on expectations regarding dental implants were selected and a narrative review was conducted.

resultsThe initial search yielded 16707 studies, out of which 1051 'potentially effective studies' were further assessed and final 41 'effective studies' were included [Kappa = 0.76]. Ten observational studies, published from 1999 to 2013, dealt specifically with expectations of dental implants. There was a large degree of heterogeneity among studies in terms of assessment instruments. Expectations relating to aesthetics and function were primarily considered. Among the 10 studies, 8 were classified as quantitative research and 2 as qualitative research. The STROBE quality of reporting scores of the studies ranged from 13.5 to 18.0. Three of the 8 quantitative studies employed a before/after study design (prospective studies) and used visual analogue scales (VAS) to measure patient expectations.

conclusionsThere is a growing interest in patients' expectations of dental implants. Most studies are cross sectional in nature and the quality of reporting varies considerably. Expectations with respect to aesthetics and function are key attributes considered. The use of visual analogue scales (VAS) provides quantitative assessments of patients' expectations but the lack of standardization of measures prohibits meta- analyses.

Indexed as

Patient SatisfactionAdultAgedAge FactorsCross-Sectional StudiesDental ImplantsEsthetics, DentalFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedProspective StudiesQuality of LifeResearch DesignSex FactorsTreatment OutcomeDental Implants

Identifiers

PMID25358599
PMCPMC4221691

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.