Related Experiment Video
Updated: Feb 25, 2026
Real-Time Dynamic Navigation System for the Precise Quad-Zygomatic Implant Placement in a Patient with a Severely Atrophic Maxilla
Published on: October 18, 2021
Patient- and Clinician-Reported Outcomes and Outcome Measures Evaluating Maxillary Full Arch Fixed Prostheses
Helena Francisco1,2, Catarina Pinto1,2, Giuseppe A Romito3
1Departamento de Cirurgia Oral e Implantologia, Faculdade de Medicina Dentária, Universidade de Lisboa, Lisboa, Portugal.
Objectives:
This systematic review aimed to evaluate both patient-reported outcomes (PROs) and clinician-reported outcomes (ClinROs) and their outcome measures (PROMs and CROMs), related to the number of implants used for an implant-supported full arch fixed dental prosthesis (IFADPs) in the edentulous maxilla.
Materials And Methods:
Literature search was conducted in five electronic databases from January 2014 to June 2024. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and prospective clinical studies reporting the number of implants, PROs, ClinROs, PROMs, and CROMs were included. Screening, data extraction, and reporting followed the PRISMA guidelines for systematic reviews. The Cochrane risk of bias tool was used to assess RCTs; ROBINS-I tool was used for non-RCTs.
Results:
Out of 1466 articles, 31 full-text articles were assessed for eligibility; 11 were included. The studies reported PROs such as oral health-related quality of life, satisfaction, postoperative symptoms, and comfort. These were assessed using various tools, including Oral Health Impact Profile questionnaires and visual or verbal rating scales. ClinROs included surgical time, implant survival, insertion torque, complications, and marginal bone loss. These were measured through clinical examinations, radiographic assessments, and standard indices. RCTs showed low to high risk of bias, and prospective studies demonstrated a moderate-to-serious risk of bias.
Conclusions:
High implant and prosthesis survival rates, enhanced quality of life, mild postoperative symptoms, and increased patient satisfaction indicate favorable outcomes for IFADPs in the edentulous maxilla. However, evidence linking the PROs and ClinROs in relation to the number of implants used for IFADPs in the edentulous maxilla remains limited.
