Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41732074›Full record

SynthesisClinical oral implants research2026

Patient- and Clinician-Reported Outcomes and Outcome Measures Evaluating Timing of Implant Loading in the Edentulous Maxilla: A Systematic Review of Prospective Studies.

Claudio Mendes Pannuti, Mohamed A Hassan, Isabella Neme Ribeiro Reis, Cristina Cunha Villar, Helena Francisco, Giuseppe A Romito

Abstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Clinical oral implants research, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
–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.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. 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

6 authors.

Claudio Mendes PannutiDivision of Periodontology, Department of Stomatology, School of Dentistry, University of São Paulo, São Paulo, Brazil.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4181-3975
Mohamed A HassanDivision of Periodontology, Department of Stomatology, School of Dentistry, University of São Paulo, São Paulo, Brazil.
Isabella Neme Ribeiro ReisDivision of Periodontology, Department of Stomatology, School of Dentistry, University of São Paulo, São Paulo, Brazil.
Cristina Cunha VillarDivision of Periodontology, Department of Stomatology, School of Dentistry, University of São Paulo, São Paulo, Brazil.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5905-5079
Helena FranciscoDepartment of Oral Surgery and Implant Dentistry, Faculty of Dental Medicine, Lisbon University, Lisbon, Portugal.
Giuseppe A RomitoDivision of Periodontology, Department of Stomatology, School of Dentistry, University of São Paulo, São Paulo, Brazil.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5669-912X

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

aimTo identify patient-reported outcomes (PROs) and clinician-reported outcomes (ClinROs) and their outcome measures (PROMs and CROMs) used in prospective studies comparing immediate, early, and delayed implant loading protocols in edentulous maxilla patients receiving implant-supported prostheses. MATERIALS AND

methodsProtocol-driven electronic searches were conducted across MEDLINE, Embase, Scopus, Web of Science, Cochrane databases-January 2014 to May 2024-to identify prospective interventional and observational studies comparing immediate, early, delayed implant loading in maxillary edentulous patients. Zygomatic implants were excluded. Risk of bias was performed using Cochrane RoB 2 and ROBINS-I, and results were reported descriptively.

resultsFive studies were included, of which four compared immediate versus delayed loading and one study compared immediate versus early loading. PROMs like visual analog scale (VAS) tool (reported in 80%) to evaluate 7 PROs: pain, overall satisfaction, comfort, speech, masticatory function, esthetics, and self-esteem. Three studies reported Oral Health Impact Profile (OHIP-19, OHIP-20), McGill Pain Questionnaire, and condition-specific instruments assessing two outcomes: chewing ability and muscular activity during oral functions. ClinROs varied considerably between studies, demonstrating significant methodological diversity. ClinROs included implant stability, accuracy, occlusal parameters, periodontal health metrics, surgical outcomes, and esthetic evaluation via VAS.

conclusionPROs were predominantly assessed using VAS to evaluate patient satisfaction, pain, function, and esthetics, followed by the OHIP Questionnaire for quality-of-life assessment in immediate versus early/delayed loading protocols. ClinROs showed no standardized approach, creating significant heterogeneity in the reported outcomes. Standardization of assessment methods and reporting of PROMs/CROMs is needed to optimize analyzing patient-centered outcomes.

Indexed as

Dental Implantation, EndosseousDental ImplantsDental Prosthesis, Implant-SupportedImmediate Dental Implant LoadingJaw, EdentulousMaxillaPatient Reported Outcome MeasuresHumansPatient SatisfactionProspective StudiesTime FactorsDental Implantsdental implantsedentulous jawimmediate dental implant loadingpatient‐reported outcome measures

Identifiers

PMID41732074
PMCPMC12930122

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.