Lin, Guo-Hao.Brunello, GiuliaJung, Ronald E.Kopp, InaSchwarz, FrankWang, Hom-LayStrauss, Franz J.2026-08-142026-08-142026-02Clinical Oral Implants Research, Vol. 37, N° 30 (2026) pp. 188-2030905-71611600-050141732067https://hdl.handle.net/20.500.12254/7706Objectives: 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.enAtribución-NoComercial-CompartirIgual 3.0 Chile (CC BY-NC-SA 3.0 CL)dental implantspatient participationstakeholder participationsurveyArticlehttps://orcid.org/0000-0002-2280-8480https://doi.org/10.1111/clr.70023