This systematic review assesses outcomes in different implant loading protocols, highlighting the need for standardized measures.
PROs were predominantly assessed using VAS to evaluate patient satisfaction, pain, function, and esthetics, followed by the OHIP Questionnaire for quality-of-life assessment in immediate versus early/delayed loading protocols. ClinROs showed no standardized approach, creating significant heterogeneity in the reported outcomes. Standardization of assessment methods and reporting of PROMs/CROMs is needed to optimize analyzing patient-centered outcomes.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Pannuti et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: