# Patient‐ and Clinician‐Reported Outcomes and Outcome Measures Evaluating Timing of Implant Placement in the Edentulous Maxilla: A Systematic Review of Clinical Studies

## TL;DR

This paper reviews clinical studies to identify patient and clinician-reported outcomes used in evaluating implant placement timing in the edentulous maxilla.

## Contribution

The study systematically reviews PROs and ClinROs in implant timing studies, highlighting the need for standardized outcome measures.

## Key findings

- PROs included oral health-related quality of life, pain intensity, and satisfaction with prosthesis.
- ClinROs like implant survival and prosthetic complications were reported in a minority of studies.
- Outcomes varied widely, with limited comparability due to inconsistent assessment methods.

## Abstract

To address what patient‐reported outcomes (PROs) and clinician‐reported outcomes (ClinROs) have been reported, and what measures (PROMs and CROMs) have been used to assess them in clinical studies on the timing of implant placement in the edentulous maxilla?

Systematic searches were conducted in five databases to identify longitudinal prospective clinical studies. PROMs, CROMs, and methods were extracted. Risk of bias was assessed based on study design, and outcomes were analyzed descriptively.

Thirteen studies were included: 1 randomized controlled trial and 12 case series. Delayed placement was reported in 9 studies, immediate in 2, and both in 2. Regarding PROs, 16 outcomes were identified, including oral health‐related quality of life (reported in 53.85%), pain intensity (38.46%), satisfaction with the prosthesis (23.08%), postoperative drug use (15.38%), and outcomes related to well‐being during surgery, treatment satisfaction, oral health satisfaction, psychosocial impact, daily life impairment and prosthesis functionality, among others (each 7.69%). Eighteen ClinROs were identified. Implant survival was reported in 38.46% of studies, prosthetic complications in 30.77%, and prosthetic survival in 23.08%. Peri‐implant health parameters—bone level changes, probing depth, plaque and bleeding indices—were reported in 23.08%. Fewer studies assessed swelling (15.38%), surgical parameters (11.54%), articulation, and oromyofunctional behavior (5.6%). Assessment methods varied widely, limiting comparability. No clear pattern was observed regarding the timing of implant placement.

PROs and ClinROs exhibited significant heterogeneity in domains, methods, and reporting. Harmonizing outcome selection and establishing a core outcome set are needed to enhance comparability and reliability.