Ignacio Sanz‐Sánchez

Aim To evaluate outcome measures and methods of assessment in clinical studies on bone augmentation/preservation procedures for the placement of dental implants. Materials and Methods A systematic search was performed on three databases from January 2011 to April 2021 to identify clinical studies reporting on any type of bone augmentation/preservation procedure. The outcomes that have been used to assess efficacy or performance in each study were registered and assigned to different domains (group of outcomes). The review followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta‐Analyses statement. Results Seven‐hundred and eighty‐three publications were included. Only 81.8% of the papers had a clear definition of their primary outcome. The rate of complications (59.3%), implant survival (58.2%), 3D radiographic bone gain/change (30%), marginal bone level (MBL; 29%), and histological outcomes (25.5%) were the most frequently reported outcome domains. The most commonly used primary outcome was 3D radiographic bone gain/change (25.8%), followed by implant survival (13.0%). Patient‐reported outcome measures (PROMs) were reported in 15.7% of studies. Differences in the reported outcomes were observed among different types of bone preservation/augmentation interventions (i.e., alveolar ridge preservation, immediate implants, horizontal and/or vertical ridge augmentation, and sinus floor augmentation). Conclusion Within the past decade, great heterogeneity was observed among the outcomes considered in studies evaluating bone preservation/augmentation procedures. Three‐dimensional radiographic bone gain/change was the most routinely reported main outcome variable, while PROMs were rarely reported.