SynthesisClinical oral implants research2026
Outcome Measures in Alveolar Ridge Augmentation in the Edentulous Maxilla: A Systematic Review and COSMIN Analysis.
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.
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.
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.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- 1st Global Consensus for Clinical Guidelines: Identifying a Core Outcome Set for Implant Dentistry in Edentulous Maxilla Rehabilitation.Clinical oral implants research · 2026Article
- Consensus Report of Group 3 of the 1st Global Consensus for Clinical Guidelines for the Rehabilitation of the Edentulous Maxilla: Advanced Diagnostic Imaging, Augmentation Techniques, and Management of Complications.Clinical oral implants research · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesThis systematic review evaluated the current outcome measures following alveolar ridge augmentation (ARA) in the edentulous maxilla. The secondary objective was to determine the validity of the identified patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) through standard analysis and methodology. MATERIALS AND
methodsA systematic review was conducted. Databases including MEDLINE, Embase, Scopus, and Cochrane Central were searched in April 2024, limited to studies published in the last 10 years. Inclusion criteria were prospective clinical studies with at least 10 patients per treatment arm, edentulous maxilla, and ARA procedures. The quality and validity of patient-reported outcomes (PROs) were assessed using the COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health status Measurement INstruments (COSMIN) checklist, which systematically evaluates their reliability, validity, and responsiveness.
resultsOf 1426 articles, 14 studies were included, with 11 unique study cohorts. Only 45.45% of the studies reported PROMs. The COSMIN analysis indicated that the Dutch version of the Oral Health Impact Profile (OHIP-49NL) and the Denture Satisfaction Questionnaire showed strong psychometric properties. However, the Patient Satisfaction and the Change in Psychology Questionnaire and Patient's Overall Satisfaction with Denture Questionnaire exhibited significant shortcomings.
conclusionFuture research should focus on improving the validity of PROMs incorporating ARA-specific outcome measures and adopting a dual-phase approach for assessing early healing and long-term PROMs to enhance study consistency and reliability.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
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 Socratic graph.