Koka, Sreenivas

The functional outcomes related to treating patients afflicted with tooth loss are an important hallmark in substantiating prosthodontic intervention. The Oral Rehabilitation Outcomes Network (ORONet) conducted two international workshops to develop a core set of outcome measures, including a functional domain. The process followed the general format used in the Outcome Measures in Rheumatology (OMERACT) workshops to develop consensus for clinical outcome measures in arthritis research, which included: developing a comprehensive list of potential outcomes in the literature; submitting them to a filter for validity, clinical discrimination, and feasibility; and ranking those measures meeting all the filter criteria for relative value. The search was conducted to include functional assessments of speech, swallowing, mastication, nutrition, sensation, and motor function as they relate to dental implant therapies. This literature review surveyed 173 papers that produced some result of these descriptors in the functional domain. Of these, 67 papers reported on functional assessments and further defined objective and subjective outcomes. Many of these results were patient-perceived improvements in function, while others were objective assessments based on established methodologies and instruments. Objective evaluations of masticatory function and speech may meet criteria for validity and discriminability for selected interventions, but are generally not feasible for routine use in clinical care settings. The current recommendation is to employ a well-validated survey instrument that covers mastication and speech, such as the Oral Health Impact Profile (OHIP-14, short form), recognizing that patient perceptions of function may differ from objective ability.

Consensus regarding outcomes of the treatment of tooth loss, especially the psychologic outcomes, is needed to guide discovery of best practices and enable a better understanding of patient management for this chronic condition. This paper presents the findings of the ORONet Psychological Working Group for prosthodontics and aims to identify psychologic outcomes with properties deemed critical to meet clinical trial and clinical practice needs for the future. References obtained using a PubMed/Medline search were reviewed for clinical outcomes measures of interest. Clinical outcomes measures were judged relative to the criteria of truth, discrimination, and feasibility. Of the psychologic outcome measures identified in this systematic review, only the OHIP-14 was thought to be suitable for use in general practice and multi-institutional outcome registries and clinical trials. Development of clinically useful psychologic outcomes for future use could benefit from developmental methods and tools outlined in the patient-related outcomes field of clinical care.

Purpose: A systematic literature review was conducted to identify the types of economic measures currently used in implant prosthodontics and determine the degree to which cost of care is considered in the context of any positive outcome of the care provided. Materials and Methods: A literature search was conducted using the following set of terms plus some additional hand searching: "dental implants" (Mesh) AND ("cost") OR "maintenance" OR "healthcare policy" OR "access to care" OR "third party" OR "economic") AND (("1995/01/01"[PDat]:'2009/12/31"[PDat]) AND (Humans[Mesh]) AND (English[lang])). Results: After a review of the 466 titles and abstracts identified by the search, 18 articles were accepted for further consideration, as some attempt at economic outcome measures was made. An additional four articles were identified by hand searching. The 22 accepted articles were grouped into four basic categories: (1) measure of costs of treatment (direct, indirect, and maintenance costs), (2) cost-effectiveness mathematical modeling applied to simulate the lifetime paths and cost of treatment, (3) cost-effectiveness analysis/costminimization, and (4) willingness-to-pay, willingness-to-accept. Attempts at determining the costs of treatment varied widely. When the OMERACT filters were applied to the various measures it was felt that discrimination and/or feasibility was a problem for most of the current economic outcome measures. Conclusions: Measures of cost-benefit, cost-effectiveness, and cost-utility are currently the gold standard; however, feasibility of such analyses is an issue. Collaboration with health economists to guide future research is highly recommended.

The published literature describing clinical evidence used in treatment decisionmaking for the management of tooth loss continues to be characterized by a lack of consistent outcome measures reflecting not only clinical performance but also a range of patient concerns. Recognizing this problem, an international group of clinicians, educators, and scientists with a focus on prosthodontics formed the Oral Rehabilitation Outcomes Network (ORONet) to promote strategies for improving health based on comprehensive, patient-centered evaluations of comparative effectiveness of therapies for oral rehabilitation. An initial goal of ORONet is to identify outcome measures for prosthodontic therapies that represent multiple domains with patient relevance, are amenable to utilization in both institutional and practice-based environments, and have established validity. Following a model used in rheumatology, the group assessed the prosthodontic literature, with an emphasis on implantbased therapies, for outcomes related to longevity and functional, psychologic, and economic domains. These systematic reviews highlight a need for further development of standardized outcomes that can be integrated across clinical and research environments.

The Oral Rehabilitation Outcomes Network (ORONet) Longevity Working Group undertook a search of the literature from 1995 to 2009 on randomized controlled trials related to longevity of osseointegrated implants. Outcomes measures used in these studies were identified and subjected to the OMERACT component criteria of truth, validity, and feasibility. Through this process, it was a challenge to identify clinical outcomes measures that fully met the criteria. An attenuated version of the component criteria was applied, and clinical measures were identified for implant outcomes, prosthetic outcomes, and indices. A recommendation on standardized reporting periods was also presented for future consideration. The endpoint of the evaluation process is to develop consensus on clinical outcomes measures that can be applied across broad populations for osseointegrated implant care. The present ORONet initiative represents a beginning toward continual improvement and consensus development for clinical outcomes measures for osseointegrated implants.

Objective: To compare the clinical performance of two different veneer preparation designs (overlap and nonoverlap) on anterior veneer restorations in vital teeth in a retrospective clinical study. Method and Materials: In this study, 292 anterior all-ceramic veneer restorations in vital teeth were clinically examined in 74 patients. The preparation designs were categorized by the amount of tooth reduction on the final casts, with 245 in the overlap and 47 nonoverlap group. Results: After a mean ± SD observation time of 124.25 ± 60.61 months, 20 failures occurred. All failures occurred in the overlap design. Restorations with nonoverlap preparation designs showed significantly fewer failures than restorations with overlap preparation design (P = .018, log-rank). Conclusion: Based on the findings of this study, whenever feasible, a preparation design without incisal overlap is recommended, especially in vital teeth. Parole chiave: incisal reduction, overlap, survival, veneer preparation design, vitality