Unplanned 6-month readmissions and in-hospital outcomes for the management of acute intermediate- and high-risk pulmonary embolism: comparisons of endovascular interventions.

The goal of oral healthcare extends beyond biological and technical success to the patient’s own perception of that success, which is shaped in large part by pre-treatment expectations. Contemporary healthcare quality frameworks emphasize patient-centered care, defined by responsiveness to patients’ preferences, needs, and values, as a core dimension of high-quality care []. Patient experience is also closely linked to clinical effectiveness and patient safety, supporting the view that subjective patient perspectives should not be treated as secondary outcomes []. Accurate clinician understanding of these expectations is therefore increasingly recognized as an essential component of care quality; however, clinicians across medical and dental disciplines frequently misjudge their patients’ concerns, health beliefs, and priorities [,]. A clinically successful outcome that fails to meet patient expectations does not fully achieve the aims of care; consequently, the alignment between what patients expect and what clinicians believe they expect is itself a quality concern. Dental implant therapy—a high-stakes, high-investment, and expectation-sensitive intervention within oral healthcare—offers a particularly informative setting in which to examine this group-level difference between patients’ and clinicians’ expectations []. Dental implant therapy has become a standard treatment modality for the rehabilitation of partially or completely edentulous patients, with millions of implants placed annually worldwide. Clinical research has traditionally focused on objective indicators of success such as implant survival, marginal bone stability, and absence of biological or technical complications [], with 10-year survival rates exceeding 90% across long-term studies and systematic reviews [,,]. Despite this clinical predictability, treatment success defined solely by such biological and technical criteria may not capture the full picture of how patients themselves evaluate the outcomes of implant therapy. In recent years, a paradigm shift has emerged in implant dentistry toward patient-centered evaluation of treatment success. Within this framework, patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) have become essential tools for capturing subjective perspectives on function, aesthetics, and psychosocial well-being. Patient satisfaction is widely recognized as a key indicator of healthcare quality and in implant dentistry high satisfaction rates have been consistently reported, particularly regarding chewing ability, comfort and aesthetic appearance. Nevertheless, satisfaction is strongly shaped by pre-treatment expectations: patients frequently approach implant therapy anticipating outcomes comparable to natural dentition and prior investigations have demonstrated that such expectations are often high and directly influence perceived treatment success [,]. Understanding patient expectations has become a central component of implant treatment planning because unrealistic expectations can preclude patient satisfaction even when the clinical outcome is objectively successful. Dentists, on the other hand, have their own way of evaluating implant therapies, and they base these evaluations on biological, technical, and prognostic factors. This has been shown in earlier studies to create discrepancies between patient expectations and dentists’ perceptions in terms of patient satisfaction and success [,].