How meta-analytic evidence impacts clinical decision making in oral implantology: a Delphi opinion poll.

OBJECTIVES

To investigate the impact of meta-analytic evidence in scientific literature on clinical decision making in the field of oral implantology.

METHODS

A Delphi opinion poll was performed at the meeting of the "Next Generation" Committees of the Austrian, German and Swiss Societies for Implantology (ÖGI, DGI and SGI). First, the experts gave their opinion on 20 questions regarding routine implant treatment (uninformed decisions), then they were confronted with up-to-date Level I evidence from scientific literature on these topics and again asked to give their opinion (informed decisions) as well as to rate the available evidence as satisfactory or insufficient. Topics involved surgical issues, such as immediate implant placement, flapless surgery, tilted and short implants and bone substitute materials, as well as opinions on prosthodontic paradigms, such as immediate loading, abutment materials and platform switching.

RESULTS

Compared to their uninformed decisions prior to confrontation with recent scientific literature, on average, 37% of experts (range: 15-50%) changed their opinion on the topic. When originally favoring one treatment alternative, less than half were still convinced after review of meta-analytic evidence. Discrepancy between uninformed and informed decisions was significantly associated with insufficient evidence (P = 0.014, 49% change of opinion vs. 26% on topics rated as sufficiently backed with evidence). Agreement regarding strength of evidence could be reached for eight topics (40%), in three issues toward sufficiency and in five issues toward lack of evidence.

CONCLUSION

Confrontation with literature results significantly changes clinical decisions of implantologists, particularly in cases of ambiguous or lacking meta-analytic evidence.