Clinical Outcome Assessments in Implant Dentistry Clinical Research

Authors

• Muhammad H. Saleh, Department of Periodontics and Oral Medicine, School of Dentistry, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan, USA.
• Frank Schwarz, Department of Oral Surgery, Implantology and Oral Medicine, Goethe University, Frankfurt, Germany.
• Hom-Lay Wang, Department of Periodontics and Oral Medicine, School of Dentistry, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan, USA.
• Ronald E. Jung, Center of Dental Medicine, Clinic of Reconstructive Dentistry, University of Zürich, Zürich, Switzerland.
• John H. Powers, Department of Medicine, George Washington University School of Medicine, Washington, DC, USA.

Document Type

Journal Article

Publication Date

2-1-2026

Journal

Clinical oral implants research

Volume

37 Suppl 30

Issue

Suppl 30

DOI

10.1111/clr.70066

Abstract

Precise terminology and a clear distinction between what is measured (outcomes) and how it is measured (outcome assessments) are fundamental in implant dentistry (ID) research. This narrative review defines outcomes and outcome assessments and aligns ID terminology with established regulatory frameworks. We map survival outcomes, biomarkers, and the four FDA-recognized clinical outcome assessments (COAs) patient-reported, clinician-reported, observer-reported, and performance outcomes onto a spectrum defined by patient meaningfulness and the need for human judgment. Definitive events (e.g., implant loss) sit at one end of the spectrum, and purely objective biomarkers (e.g., dimensional ridge changes) sit at the other end, while COAs occupy the middle of that spectrum. Content validity is essential for any COA. Tools must be co-developed with people with lived experience (PWLE) and evaluated with Consensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement INstruments (COSMIN) standards to ensure they truly measure the intended construct, in the right population, with adequate reliability, responsiveness, and interpretability. Finally, we caution against conflating measures (tools, e.g., radiography) with endpoints (prespecified analysis variables with time frame and threshold). Using standardized definitions in present and future ID consensus statements will increase their meaningfulness and strengthen the relevance and comparability of clinical trials.

APA Citation

Saleh, Muhammad H.; Schwarz, Frank; Wang, Hom-Lay; Jung, Ronald E.; and Powers, John H., "Clinical Outcome Assessments in Implant Dentistry Clinical Research" (2026). GW Authored Works. Paper 8764.
https://hsrc.himmelfarb.gwu.edu/gwhpubs/8764

Department

Medicine