ArticleFrontiers in oral health2026
The implant treatment experience and knowledge scale: reliability and validity of a patient-reported outcome measure for dental implant therapy.
Article in Frontiers in oral health, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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.
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.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Despite increasing interest in patient-reported outcomes in implant dentistry, there is a lack of consensus on tool selection and outcome prioritization to assess patient-reported outcomes in implant dentistry. This study validates an instrument designed to support clinicians in evaluating patient experience and knowledge for personalized implant therapy. Methodology: Patients with dental implants that had been functioning for at least one year were included in this cross-sectional study. A five-point Likert questionnaire (Implant Treatment Experience and Knowledge Scale; ITEKS) was administered to measure patients' perceived knowledge of peri-implant health/disease and their satisfaction with the treatment. The reliability of the questionnaire was analyzed using Cronbach's alpha. Exploratory factor analysis was used to examine the underlying structure of the questionnaire. Correlations between the OHIP-14, a widely used instrument for assessing oral health-related quality of life, and the administered scales were analyzed to examine convergent validity. The potential influence of patient-related factors (age, gender, education, source of information, and peri-implant diagnosis) was investigated. Results: A 28-item tool was used to assess dental implant treatment related awareness, satisfaction, post-treatment attitudes, and the etiology, treatment, and risk factors of peri-implantitis. The mean functional time of dental implants was 6.69 years. Psychometric properties were evaluated using exploratory factor analysis and Cronbach's alpha. Cronbach's alpha values for these tools were.864 and.779, respectively. Peri-implantitis was significantly associated with decreased patient satisfaction ( Conclusions: The instrument demonstrated methodological suitability for assessing patient-related outcomes in individuals undergoing implant treatment, as confirmed by reliability and validity tests. These results indicate that the ITEKS is a reliable and valid instrument for assessing patient experience in implant dentistry.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
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.