# 1st Global Consensus for Clinical Guidelines for the Rehabilitation of the Edentulous Maxilla: Patient and Cross‐Disciplinary Expert Single‐Round Surveys

## TL;DR

This study gathers patient and expert opinions on treating toothless upper jaws to guide clinical guidelines and identify research needs.

## Contribution

The study provides a structured consensus process involving patients and experts for edentulous maxilla rehabilitation.

## Key findings

- Consensus was reached on treatment preferences like fixed full-arch prostheses and the use of cone-beam computed tomography.
- Both patients and experts emphasized the need for further research on maxillary implant rehabilitation.
- Areas without consensus reveal treatment variations and knowledge gaps in current practices.

## Abstract

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.

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.

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.

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.