Patients' expectations from dental implants: a systematic review of the literature

Jie Yao, Hua Tang, Xiao-Li Gao, Colman McGrath, Nikos Mattheos

ObjectiveTo examine the current literature on the impact of patients¿ expectations on treatment outcomes or final patient satisfaction and to identify the theoretical frameworks, study designs and measurement instruments which have been employed to assess patients¿ expectations within implant dentistry.MethodsA structured literature search of four databases Pubmed, Cochrane, Web of Science and PsychINFO was conducted following PRISMA guidelines. Any type of literature published in English discussing the topic of `patients expectations¿ in oral health were identified and further screened. Studies reporting on expectations regarding dental implants were selected and a narrative review was conducted.ResultsThe initial search yielded 16707 studies, out of which 1051 `potentially effective studies¿ were further assessed and final 41 `effective studies¿ were included [Kappa¿=¿0.76]. Ten observational studies, published from 1999 to 2013, dealt specifically with expectations of dental implants. There was a large degree of heterogeneity among studies in terms of assessment instruments. Expectations relating to aesthetics and function were primarily considered. Among the 10 studies, 8 were classified as quantitative research and 2 as qualitative research. The STROBE quality of reporting scores of the studies ranged from 13.5 to 18.0. Three of the 8 quantitative studies employed a before/after study design (prospective studies) and used visual analogue scales (VAS) to measure patient expectations.ConclusionsThere is a growing interest in patients¿ expectations of dental implants. Most studies are cross sectional in nature and the quality of reporting varies considerably. Expectations with respect to aesthetics and function are key attributes considered. The use of visual analogue scales (VAS) provides quantitative assessments of patients¿ expectations but the lack of standardization of measures prohibits meta- analyses.