Related Experiment Video
Updated: Jun 4, 2026
Designing CAD/CAM Surgical Guides for Maxillary Reconstruction Using an In-house Approach
Published on: August 24, 2018
1st Global Consensus for Clinical Guidelines for the Rehabilitation of the Edentulous Maxilla: Patient and
Guo-Hao Lin1,2, Giulia Brunello3,4, Ronald E Jung5
1Department of Orofacial Sciences, University of California San Francisco School of Dentistry, San Francisco, California, USA.
Objectives:
To gather perspectives from patients and cross-disciplinary experts on treatment practices and outcomes in managing the edentulous maxilla to inform a structured consensus process and highlight areas for future research.
Materials And Methods:
An 18-item single-round survey was distributed in November 2024 with 68 patients and 68 cross-disciplinary experts. Participation was voluntary, anonymous, incentive-free, and required informed consent. Consensus was defined as > 75% and ≤ 95% agreement or disagreement, and strong consensus as > 95% agreement or disagreement.
Results:
Response rates were 60.3% among patients, and 30.9% among cross-disciplinary experts. Consensus or strong consensus was achieved by patients on 15 statements across nine items and by cross-disciplinary experts on 15 statements across eight items. Items reaching consensus included the use of cone-beam computed tomography, preference for fixed full-arch prostheses, major treatment outcomes, need for hard tissue augmentation, home care regimens, dental implant lifespan, procedure difficulty, cost-effectiveness, and patient-reported outcomes. Both groups also highlighted the need for further research on full-arch implant rehabilitation of the maxilla.
Conclusion:
Findings from both surveys inform the development of clinical practice guidelines in treating the edentulous maxilla by providing valuable perspectives from patients and cross-disciplinary experts. Areas lacking consensus illustrate real-world variations in treatment approaches, highlight knowledge gaps in the current literature, and reveal important differences among patient expectations, expert opinions, and available evidence.
