Share Page:

Volume 34 , Issue 2
March/April 2019

Pages 506520

Patient-Centered Risk Assessment in Implant Treatment Planning

Donald A. Curtis, DMD/Guo-Hao Lin, DDS, MS/Alison Fishman, DDS/Steven J. Sadowsky, DDS/Diane M. Daubert, PhD, MS/Yvonne Kapila, DDS, PhD/Arun B. Sharma, BDS, MSc/Gregory J. Conte DMD, MS/Craig Y. Yonemura, DDS/Carlo P. Marinello, Dr Med Dent, MS/Rich Kao, DDS, PhD

PMID: 30716143
DOI: 10.11607/jomi.7025

Purpose: To evaluate the current scientific evidence on estimating cumulative risk for biologic complications relating to dental implants and to develop a patient-centered risk assessment tool for establishing aggregate risk. Materials and Methods: A review of the scientific literature on risk indicators relating to dental implants was completed with the goal of identifying and weighting individual risk indicators so aggregate biologic risk could be estimated. Three authors completed independent reviews of the literature, identifying 31 systematic reviews on risk indicators for biologic complications with dental implants, from which 24 potential risk indicators were considered. Due to inconclusive scientific data on risk indicators, a Delphi process was used to gather structured expert opinion to supplement findings from the literature. Eleven Delphi participants with expertise in prosthodontics or periodontics participated in two email exchanges and one face-to-face meeting to comment and debate on the initial identification and weighting of risk indicators, propose the addition or removal of risk indicators, and provide recommended clinical management for each risk indicator. Results: After three rounds of debate, literature review, and additions and removals of various risk indicators, consensus (defined as 95% or more in agreement) was achieved on 20 risk indicators. The Delphi group concluded that the risk indicators of smoking, diabetes, antiresorptive agents, and cemented restorations should include subcategories to more accurately identify and represent patient-specific risk. Clinical recommendations based on individual and aggregate risk were established by consensus. Conclusion: The literature on risk indicators for biologic complications was conflicting and inconclusive. The Delphi method was used to identify and establish the weighting of individual risk indicators, resulting in a risk assessment tool for estimating aggregate risk.

Full Text PDF File | Order Article


Get Adobe Reader
Adobe Acrobat Reader is required to view PDF files. This is a free program available from the Adobe web site.
Follow the download directions on the Adobe web site to get your copy of Adobe Acrobat Reader.


© 2020 Quintessence Publishing Co, Inc JOMI Home
Current Issue
Ahead of Print
Author Guidelines
Accepted Manuscripts
Submission Form
Quintessence Home
Terms of Use
Privacy Policy
About Us
Contact Us