Artículos de Revistas

URI permanente para esta colección

https://repositorio.uft.cl/handle/20.500.12254/2477

Examinar

Examinando Artículos de Revistas por Autor "Lin, Guo-Hao"

Mostrando 1 - 2 de 2
  • Miniatura
    Ítem
    1st Global Consensus for Clinical Guidelines for the Rehabilitation of the Edentulous Maxilla: Patient and Cross-Disciplinary Expert Single-Round Surveys
    (John Wiley & Sons Ltd, 2026-02) Lin, Guo-Hao
    Objectives: To gather perspectives from patients and cross-disciplinary experts on treatment practices and outcomes in managing the edentulous maxilla to inform a structured consensus process and highlight areas for future research. Materials and Methods: An 18-item single-round survey was distributed in November 2024 with 68 patients and 68 cross-disciplinary experts. Participation was voluntary, anonymous, incentive-free, and required informed consent. Consensus was defined as >75% and ≤95% agreement or disagreement, and strong consensus as >95% agreement or disagreement. Results: Response rates were 60.3% among patients, and 30.9% among cross-disciplinary experts. Consensus or strong consensus was achieved by patients on 15 statements across nine items and by cross-disciplinary experts on 15 statements across eight items. Items reaching consensus included the use of cone-beam computed tomography, preference for fixed full-arch prostheses, major treatment outcomes, need for hard tissue augmentation, home care regimens, dental implant lifespan, procedure difficulty, cost-effectiveness, and patient-reported outcomes. Both groups also highlighted the need for further research on full-arch implant rehabilitation of the maxilla. Conclusion: Findings from both surveys inform the development of clinical practice guidelines in treating the edentulous maxilla by providing valuable perspectives from patients and cross-disciplinary experts. Areas lacking consensus illustrate real-world variations in treatment approaches, highlight knowledge gaps in the current literature, and reveal important differences among patient expectations, expert opinions, and available evidence.
  • Miniatura
    Ítem
    1st Global Consensus for Clinical Guidelines for the Rehabilitation of the Edentulous Maxilla: Single-Round Survey on Implant-Supported Fixed and Removable Prostheses.
    (John Wiley & Sons Ltd, 2026-02) Lin, Guo-Hao
    Objectives: This single-round survey on prosthodontic rehabilitation of the edentulous maxilla is one of four clinician surveys commissioned prior to the first Global Consensus for Clinical Guidelines (GCCG). Within the GCCG aim of refining treatment protocols and enhancing patient care, this survey gathered expert insights into best practices, challenges, and treatment outcomes for these complex restorative procedures. Materials and Methods: The 25-item survey was sent to 230 identified experts from 41 countries in October 2024. Participation in the survey was voluntary and without incentives. Informed consent was obtained at the beginning of the survey. All data were collected, stored, and processed anonymously. Results: Of the 230 experts contacted, 123 accessed the survey and 121 provided consent and completed the questionnaire, resulting in a response rate of 52.6%. The survey responses identified 13 statements that reached consensus (>75% but ≤ 95% agreement) and five that reached strong consensus (>95% agreement). These 18 statements were derived from 6 items addressing the topics of anatomical landmarks for tooth positioning, preferred distal implant position, preferred minimum implant diameter, preferred retention method, relevant patient-reported outcomes, and relevant clinician-reported outcomes. Conclusion: This study gathered valuable expert insights to inform a consensus development process for establishing clinical practice guidelines for management of the edentulous maxilla. The survey identified 18 statements from six items that reached consensus or strong consensus among survey respondents. The items not achieving consensus served to reflect real-world implant treatment strategies, identify literature gaps, and highlight any inconsistencies between expert consensus and current evidence.