Evaluation of the influence exerted by different dental specialty backgrounds and measuring instrument reproducibility on esthetic aspects of maxillary implant-supported single crown

Reproducibility and Reliability of Intraoral Scanners for Evaluating Peri-Implant Tissues and Implant-Supported Prostheses: A Cross-Sectional Study

OBJECTIVE

To assess the reproducibility and reliability of the pink (PES) and white esthetic scores (WES) using digital images and the intra- and inter-examiner agreement among different clinical backgrounds and assessment methods.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

Standardized intraoral images were obtained from adult subjects with an implant-supported single-tooth fixed dental prosthesis located in the maxillary esthetic zone using a digital camera and a true-color intraoral scanner. According to the PES and WES criteria, the images were evaluated by 20 calibrated evaluators, 5 prosthodontists, 5 periodontists, 5 undergraduates, and 5 oral surgeons.

RESULTS

The total number of individual PES and WES was 12600 and 9000, respectively. Similar PES and WES values were obtained with the intraoral scanner compared to the digital camera. Intra- and inter-rater variations were observed between and within evaluators' clinical backgrounds, with periodontists showing consistently lower mean PES and WES. The intraclass correlation coefficient ranges between 0.41 to 0.61 for the PES and 0.42 to 0.69 for the WES, resulting in fair to good agreement in both digital methods.

CONCLUSION

The digital assessment of the peri-implant tissues and implant-supported prostheses utilizing images provided by an intraoral scanner offers a reproducible and reliable digital method comparable with the digital camera.

CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE

This study highlights the reliability and reproducibility of using intraoral scanners for evaluating peri-implant tissues and implant-supported prostheses. The findings suggest that intraoral scanners are a viable digital alternative to traditional digital imaging for these assessments. However, the observed intra- and inter-rater variations in pink and white esthetic scores, according to the clinical background of evaluators, emphasize the need for caution when interpreting these values in clinical decision-making and research.

Evaluation of Peri-Implantitis Bone Defect Healing: Comparing the Efficacy of Small-Particle Dentin and Bio-Oss in Bone Density Attenuation

Introduction: Peri-implantitis is a serious complication in dental implantology that, if left untreated, may lead to implant loss and systemic diseases. Effective regeneration of bone defects resulting from peri-implantitis is crucial to maintaining the functionality of dental implants. Purpose of the Study: The study aimed to compare the effectiveness of fine-particle dentin and Bio-Oss in the reconstruction of bone defects caused by peri-implantitis. Materials and Methods: The study included a comprehensive radiological assessment of changes in bone density over time. Bone density was assessed using Hounsfield Units (HUs) as a measure of bone attenuation, with radiological assessments performed at 8- and 12-week intervals during the healing process. The study included participants ranging in age from 30 to 65 years. Fifty-seven patients were divided into three groups: 22 patients received small-particle dentin, 15 received Bio-Oss, and 20 controls without bone substitute material. Results: The fine-dentin group showed a 20% increase in bone density after 8 weeks (p < 0.05), while the Bio-Oss group showed a 15% increase after 12 weeks (p < 0.05). The control group showed minimal changes in bone density (5% after 12 weeks), which was not statistically significant. Clinical evaluations showed 95% successful integration in the fine dentin group, 85% in the Bio-Oss group, and 70% in the control group. The fine-dentin group showed a 20% increase in bone density after 8 weeks (p < 0.05), while the Bio-Oss group showed a 15% increase after 12 weeks (p < 0.05). The control group showed minimal changes in bone density (5% after 12 weeks), which was not statistically significant. Clinical evaluations showed 95% successful integration in the fine-dentin group, 85% in the Bio-Oss group, and 70% in the control group. Conclusions: Both fine-particle dentin and Bio-Oss significantly improved bone density compared to the control group. Fine-particle dentin is suitable for immediate bone regeneration due to its rapid initial regeneration, while Bio-Oss provides long-term support, ideal for maintaining implant stability over a longer period of time. The results highlight the importance of selecting appropriate bone replacement materials depending on the clinical scenario to improve patient outcomes after dental implant placement.

Aesthetic outcomes of different materials for delayed, single-tooth restorations for immediately placed implants. A randomized controlled clinical trial

OBJECTIVES

The aim of this study is to compare the aesthetic outcomes of metal porcelain (C), lithium disilicate (T1) and porcelain-layered zirconium (T2) immediate implant-supported single crowns in the anterior maxilla.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Forty-five immediate dental implants were provided for 45 patients that required the extraction of a single tooth in the anterior maxilla. A temporary prosthesis was provided at 8 weeks after placement followed by the final prosthesis at 24 weeks post-implantation. The patients were randomly allocated into 3 groups: 15 patients in the control group (C) received a metal-porcelain restoration, 15 patients (T1) received a lithium disilicate (LD) restoration and 15 patients (T2) received a porcelain-layered, zirconium (Z) restoration. Pink (PES) and White (WES) esthetic scores, radiographic bone levels, periodontal parameters and patient's esthetic satisfaction using a visual analogue scale (VAS) were evaluated at the time of final restoration placement (t0) and at 12-months post-loading (t12).

RESULTS

No implants were lost during the duration of this study. Statistically significant higher WES and VAS scores (p < 0.05) were recorded in T1 vs C and T1 vs T2 groups respectively. Similar radiographic bone levels and periodontal parameters were recorded in all groups.

CONCLUSION

Within the limitations of this study, it was concluded that T1 restorations provided better WES outcomes when compared to C restorations and better VAS scores when compared to T2 restorations at 12 months post-loading. Besides, different material interphases did not have an impact in PES, bone levels or periodontal parameters.

CLINICAL RELEVANCE

There is limited data comparing aesthetic outcomes of implant supported single crowns made of different ceramic materials based on accepted and comparable indexes and the evaluation of the patient's perspective regarding these aesthetic outcomes.

Validation of the pink esthetic score/white esthetic score at single tooth-supported prostheses in the esthetic zone: A randomized clinical trial

OBJECTIVES

To validate the reproducibility and inter/intra-observer variability of the Pink Esthetic Score/White Esthetic Score (PES/WES) of single tooth-supported prostheses in the maxillary esthetic zone (13-23).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Forty-five patients were randomly assigned to one of the three treatment options (15 patients per group) receiving each one a different crown type: Porcelain fused to metal (PFM), monolithic zirconia, and lithium disilicate. Eight observers from each of four different specialties (Prosthodontists, Orthodontists, Periodontists, and Oral Surgeons) were recruited and assessed twice and four weeks apart (i.e., T1 and T2) 45 photographs of the single tooth-supported prosthesis using PES/WES and compared them with contralateral teeth.

RESULTS

According to the ANOVA and post hoc tests, the zirconia crown type obtained the highest mean score by all observers, with a mean value of 16.70 ± 2.94. The prosthodontists and oral surgeons assigned the lowest mean score to PFM crowns, 13.03 ± 3.47 and 13.80 ± 3.17, respectively. Notably, the prosthodontists awarded the highest scores, specifically 17.50 ± 2.81 for the zirconia crowns. Intraobserver agreement was calculated utilizing the paired t-test. Pairwise comparisons between observers of different specialties revealed significant intraobserver agreement. Interclass correlation coefficient (ICC) scores were statistically significant among four specialties. No difference was detected concerning the interobserver agreement.

CONCLUSIONS

The PES/WES index remains consistent across various observers from different specializations, yielding uniform results in the overall esthetic evaluation. Consequently, in light of the presented preliminary positive results, its use might also be considered for the esthetic assessment of single-tooth-supported prostheses.

CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE

The PES/WES index may be employed clinically to evaluate single tooth-supported prostheses as it emerged as a reproducible esthetic scoring system.

Assessment of reproducibility and influence of different dental specialties on functional implant prosthodontic score: A prospective clinical study analyzing single-unit implant crowns

AIM

Implant therapy in partially edentulous patients has become the most adapted and predictable treatment modality. The success rate of implants has been measured in terms of esthetic, biological, and technical factors such as radiographic bone loss, prosthetic complications, and stability. Despite the existence of several indices for the esthetic assessment of implant crowns, a need for functional evaluation of the implant crown with an objective and reproducible score has arisen. The study aims to validate the reproducibility of the functional implant prosthodontic score (FIPS) and the influence exerted by different dental specialties while evaluating posterior single-unit implant crowns.

STUDY SETTING AND DESIGN

This was a prospective clinical study.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Fifteen patients with cement-retained single-implant crowns in the posterior region of the jaws were included. Eight examiners, two prosthodontists, two periodontists, two oral surgeons, and two orthodontists evaluated 15 photographs of single-unit implant crowns during the 1-year follow-up examination. The examiners assessed the photographs for FIPS, which includes five parameters for objectively evaluating the single-unit implant crowns. Assessments were performed twice at a gap of 4 weeks.

STATISTICAL ANALYSIS USED

Pearson's correlation with a 95% confidence interval was calculated for the intra-examiner and the Kruskal-Wallis test for inter-examiner reproducibility.

RESULTS

The mean total FIPS scores for all included examiners were 7.133 for time T1 and 7.074 for time T2, showing a strong Pearson correlation coefficient for intra-examiner reproducibility. No significant difference was analyzed among different specialties with statistically significant values of the Kruskal-Wallis test.

CONCLUSION

Intra- and inter-examiner analysis showed very consistent results during the reproducibility assessment of FIPS. The results validated the use of FIPS as a long-term predictive functional evaluation tool for the single-implant crowns in posterior sites irrespective of the effect of different dental specialties. It could be used for risk estimation and prognosis for long-term survival and performance of implant crowns.

Do different incision techniques for implant surgery affect gingival papilla height around dental implants? A retrospective study of 115 cases

BACKGROUND

Surgical incision designs are considered closely correlated to gingival papilla of dental implants. This study aims to explore whether different incision techniques for implant placement and second stage surgery affect gingival papilla height.

METHODS

Cases using different incision techniques (intrasulcular incisions or papilla sparing incisions) between November 2017 and December 2020 were selected and analyzed. A digital camera was used to capture images of gingival papilla at different time points. Ratio of papilla height to crown length using different incision techniques were measured and statistically compared.

RESULTS

A total of 115 papillae (68 patients) were eligible according to the inclusion/exclusion criteria. The average age was 39.6 years. Decreased postoperative papilla height were observed after implant placement surgery in all groups without statistical difference. However, for second stage surgery, intrasulcular incisions lead to more atrophy in gingival papilla compared to papilla sparing incisions.

CONCLUSIONS

Selection of incision techniques in implant placement surgery does not significantly affect papilla height. For second stage surgery, intrasulcular incisions significantly leads to more papilla atrophy compared with papilla sparing incisions. Trial registration KQCL2017003.

Single and partial tooth replacement with fixed dental prostheses supported by dental implants: a systematic review of outcomes and outcome measures used in clinical trials in the last 10 years

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate outcome measures, methods of assessment and analysis in clinical studies on fixed single- and multiple- unit implant restorations.

METHODS

Three independent electronic database searches (MEDLINE, EMBASE, COCHRANE) were done to identify prospective and retrospective clinical studies published from January 2011 up to June 2021 with ≥20 patients and minimum 1 year follow-up period on technical and clinical outcomes of implant-supported single crowns (SCs) and partial fixed dental prostheses (P-FDPs). An entire data extraction was performed to identify primarily the most reported outcome measures and later to define the choice of assessment methods of those outcome measures. The outcomes were analysed descriptively, and the strength of association was evaluated using Pearson Chi-square test (p≤0.05).

RESULTS

In total 531 studies, 368 on SCs (69.3%), 70 on P-FDPs (13.1%), and 93 on both restoration types (17.5%) were included. 56.3% of all studies did not clearly define a primary outcome. The most frequent primary outcome was marginal bone-level (MBL) (55.2%) followed by implant survival (5.3%), professional esthetic evaluation (3.4%) and technical complications (2.1%). Peri-implant indices were the most reported secondary outcome (55.1%) followed by implant survival (39.9%), MBL (36%) and implant success (26.4%). Prosthetic failure (7 studies - 3.9%) was one of the least reported outcome measures CONCLUSIONS: Outcome measures and their assessment methods exhibited high heterogeneity among studies. Primary outcomes were not often defined clearly, and the most frequently selected primary outcome was marginal bone loss. Prosthetic outcomes, implant survival and patient related outcomes remained infrequently reported.

Single and partial tooth replacement with fixed dental prostheses supported by dental implants: A systematic review of outcomes and outcome measures used in clinical trials in the last 10 years

AIM

To evaluate outcome measures, methods of assessment, and analysis in clinical studies on fixed single- and multiple-unit implant restorations.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Three independent electronic database searches (MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Cochrane) were done to identify prospective and retrospective clinical studies published from January 2011 up to June 2021 with ≥20 patients and minimum 1-year follow-up period on technical and clinical outcomes of implant-supported single crowns (SCs) and partial fixed dental prostheses (P-FDPs). An entire data extraction was performed to identify primarily the most reported outcome measures and later to define the choice of assessment methods of those outcome measures. The outcomes were analysed descriptively, and the strength of association was evaluated using the Pearson chi-square test (p ≤ .05).

RESULTS

In a total 531 studies, 368 on SCs (69.3%), 70 on P-FDPs (13.1%), and 93 on both restoration types (17.5%) were included; 56.3% of all studies did not clearly define a primary outcome. The most frequent primary outcome was marginal bone level (MBL) (55.2%) followed by implant survival (5.3%), professional aesthetic evaluation (3.4%), and technical complications (2.1%). Peri-implant indices were the most reported secondary outcome (55.1%), followed by implant survival (39.9%), MBL (36%), and implant success (26.4%). Prosthetic failure (seven studies [3.9%]) was one of the least reported outcome measures.

CONCLUSIONS

Outcome measures and their assessment methods showed high heterogeneity among studies. Primary outcomes were not often defined clearly, and the most frequently selected primary outcome was marginal bone loss. Prosthetic outcomes, implant survival, and patient-related outcomes were only infrequently reported.

Oral health-related quality of life of patients rehabilitated with fixed and removable implant-supported dental prostheses

Dental implants have become a mainstream treatment approach in daily practice, and because of their high survival rates over time, they have become the preferred treatment option for prosthetic rehabilitation in many situations. Despite the relatively high predictability of implant therapy and high costs to patients, patient perceptions of success and patient-reported outcome measures have become increasingly significant in implant dentistry. Increasing numbers of publications deal with oral health-related quality of life and/or patient-reported outcome measures. The aim of this paper was to provide an overview of the available evidence on oral health-related quality of life of fully and partially dentate patients rehabilitated with fixed and removable implant-supported dental prostheses. A comprehensive electronic search was performed on publications in English up to 2021. A selection of standardized questionnaires and scales used for the evaluation of oral health-related quality of life were analyzed and explained. The analysis encompassed three aspects: a functional evaluation of oral health-related quality of life, an esthetic assessment of oral health-related quality of life, and a cost-related evaluation of oral health-related quality of life for rehabilitation with dental implants. The data demonstrated that the preoperative expectations of patients markedly affected the outcomes perceived by the patients. As expected, reconstructions supported by implants substantially improved the stability of conventional dentures and allowed improved function and patient satisfaction. However, from a patient's perspective, oral health-related quality of life was not significantly greater for dental implants compared with conventional tooth-supported prostheses. The connection of the implants to the prostheses with locators or balls indicated high oral health-related quality of life. The data also suggest that patient expectation is not a good predictor of treatment outcome. In terms of esthetic outcomes, the data clearly indicate that patients' perceptions and clinicians' assessments differed, with those of clinicians yielding higher standards. There were no significant differences found between the esthetic oral health-related quality of life ratings for soft tissue-level implants compared with those for bone-level implants. Comparison of all-ceramic and metal-ceramic restorations showed no significant differences in patients' perceptions in terms of esthetic outcomes. Depending on the choice of outcome measure and financial marginal value, supporting a conventional removable partial denture with implants is cost-effective when the patient is willing to invest more to achieve a higher oral health-related quality of life. In conclusion, the oral health-related quality of life of patients rehabilitated with implant-supported dental prostheses did not show overall superiority over conventional prosthetics. Clinicians' and patients' evaluations, especially of esthetic outcomes, are, in the majority of cases, incongruent. Nevertheless, patient-reported outcomes are important in the evaluation of function, esthetics, and the cost-effectiveness of treatment with implant-supported dental prostheses, and should be taken into consideration in daily practice.

Soft tissue metric parameters, methods and aesthetic indices in implant dentistry: A critical review

OBJECTIVES

The primary objective was to provide an overview of soft tissue metric parameters, methods, and aesthetic indices in implant dentistry. The secondary objective was to describe reliability and validity of aesthetic indices.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Two independent reviewers conducted an electronic literature search in Pubmed, Web of Science, Embase, and Cochrane databases up to October 2020 to identify studies on soft tissue metric parameters, methods, and aesthetic indices. Aesthetic indices were evaluated in terms of reliability and validity. Data extraction was performed by the same reviewers.

RESULTS

Five metric parameters (papilla height, linear changes in soft tissue level, color assessment, soft tissue thickness, and profilometric soft tissue changes) registered by means of several methods (intra-oral registrations, radiographic assessments, digital analyses, and ultrasonic assessments), and 15 aesthetic indices (Papilla Index (PI), ad hoc questions scored with Visual Analogue Scales, Pink Esthetic Score (PES), Implant Crown Aesthetic Index (ICAI), Implant Aesthetic Score (IAS), Rompen Index, Subjective Esthetic Score, White Esthetic Score, Copenhagen Index, Complex Esthetic Index, Californian Dental Association Index (CDAI), Peri-Implant, and Crown Index, Functional Implant Prosthodontic Score, Implant Restoration Esthetic Index (IREI), and Mucosal Scarring Index (MSI)) could be identified. With respect to metric parameters and methods, intra-oral registrations were least accurate whereas profilometric soft tissue changes on the basis of digital surface models were most accurate. Six aesthetic indices showed good inter-rater reliability (PI, PES, ICAI, CDAI, IREI, and MSI). Good validity could only be shown for two indices (PES and CEI). Given this and on the basis of ease of use and ease of interpretation, PES qualified best for clinical research on single implants. None of the indices fulfilled the quality criteria for clinical research on multiple implants.

CONCLUSION

Many soft tissue assessment methods with varying reliability and validity have been described and used, which hampers uniform reporting in implant dentistry. Clinical investigators are advised to measure linear and profilometric soft tissue changes using digital surface models, and to use a reliable and validated aesthetic index. Currently, PES qualifies best for aesthetic evaluation of single implants. An index is to be developed to assess the aesthetic outcome of rehabilitations on multiple implants.

Reproducibility and validity of anterior implant esthetic indices: A review

Background:

The purpose of this review was to narrate about the reproducibility and validity of different indices evaluating esthetic aspects in anterior single implant-supported restorations.

Materials and Methods:

An electronic search of Medline, Scopus, Embase, Cochrane Central, and Web of Science databases was performed using the keywords “dental implants,” “anterior esthetics,” “esthetic score,” and “esthetic index.” Besides, a manual search of dental implant journals was carried out.

Results:

The electronic search revealed 932 titles. After further review, 14 articles fulfilled the eligibility criteria and were included in this review. Because of the heterogeneity of the study designs, interventions, and parameters used for assessment of esthetics, no meta-analysis could be performed.

Conclusion:

Many indices have been proposed for the evaluation of the esthetic aspects of single implant-supported reconstructions in the anterior maxilla. All of them have some advantages and drawbacks that this review pointed out. The evidence level of studies used for the validation of these indices is poor. It is necessary to achieve a consensus on the tools for assessment of the esthetic aspect and perform evidence-based studies to validate an appropriate index.

Esthetic evaluation of natural teeth in anterior maxilla using the pink and white esthetic scores

BACKGROUND

Natural teeth in the anterior maxilla are critical in determination the esthetic outcome of single implant prosthesis.

PURPOSE

The present study aimed to explore aesthetics of natural teeth in the anterior maxilla using the Pink Esthetic Score/White Esthetic Score (PES/WES) index. Additionally, inherent weak spots of natural teeth and high-risk parameters of prostheses were also considered.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

This cross-sectional study was performed by photographic analysis.

RESULTS

A total of 102 subjects and 306 teeth (the right incisor, lateral incisor and canine) were included. The grand means of the PES and WES were 12.92 and 8.75, respectively. The score of soft tissue margin, soft tissue contour and outline/volume of the crown were significantly lower than other variables. The PES and WES showed a downward trend with age. Most of the PES/WES values of the females exceeded those of the males.

CONCLUSION

The average level of natural teeth in PES and WES assessment were around 13 and 9, respectively. The soft tissue margin, soft tissue contour and outline/volume of the crown were high-risk parameters for the esthetic outcomes of implant reconstructions. Underlying factors, such as age and gender, contributed to the esthetics of natural teeth change.

Evaluation of implant esthetics using eight objective indices-Comparative analysis of reliability and validity

OBJECTIVES

The aim of the present study was to give a detailed analysis on eight proposed implant esthetic indices including a total of 48 parameters with respect to validity and reproducibility as well as its correlation to patients' perception of esthetics.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

Standardized intraoral photographs of 189 patients with 189 implant-supported crowns and adjacent peri-implant soft tissue in the esthetic zone (central and lateral incisors, canine, first premolar) served as basis for this evaluation. Eight indices (Papilla Index [PI], Pink Esthetic Score [PES], Implant Crown Aesthetic Index [ICAI], Pink and White Esthetic Score [PES/WES], Complex Esthetic Index [CEI], Implant Aesthetic Score [IAS], Subjective Esthetic Score [SES], and Rompen Index) with a total of 48 parameters were selected. Esthetic evaluation was performed twice by five examiners with an interval of 4 weeks between the evaluations.

RESULTS

A total of 1,890 evaluations including eight esthetic indices served as basis for the statistical analysis. Among the overall main scores tested for inter-rater reliability, the highest ρ^inter values were computed for CEI, PES, PI, and IAS scores. By contrast, SES and Rompen showed the worst inter-rater reliability, respectively. The highest level of intra-rater reproducibility was noted for PI, PES, and CEI. The lowest level of intra-rater reproducibility showed Rompen, SES, and ICA. The Papilla Index demonstrated the highest level of inter-rater reliability. The remainder of the single variables (n = 46) did not reach the ρ^inter level of 0.6. The single variables PI mesial, PI distal as well as CEI P4 showed the highest ρ^intra with statistical significance higher than 0.8. The lowest agreement was observed among the variables ICA3, WES5, and IASm2. In general, VAS did not show any good correlation to the esthetic indices proposed so far. The influence of esthetic parameters on subjective patient satisfaction was generally low.

CONCLUSION

In conclusion, significant differences regarding reliability and validity could be observed in the present comparison of eight esthetic indices. Objective evaluation of the esthetic outcome of implant therapy inherently fails to reflect subjective patient opinion, however, requires consistency of results to enable between-study comparison and meta-analysis.

Surgery without papilla incision: tunneling flap procedures in plastic periodontal and implant surgery

Diverse clinical advancements, together with some relevant technical innovations, have led to an increase in popularity of tunneling flap procedures in plastic periodontal and implant surgery in the recent past. This trend is further promoted by the fact that these techniques have lately been introduced to a considerably expanded range of indications. While originally described for the treatment of gingival recession-type defects, tunneling flap procedures may now be applied successfully in a variety of clinical situations in which augmentation of the soft tissues is indicated in the esthetic zone. Potential clinical scenarios include surgical thickening of thin buccal gingiva or peri-implant mucosa, alveolar ridge/socket preservation and implant second-stage surgery, as well as soft-tissue ridge augmentation or pontic site development. In this way, tunneling flap procedures developed from a technique, originally merely intended for surgical root coverage, into a capacious surgical conception in plastic periodontal and implant surgery. The purpose of this article is to provide a comprehensive overview on tunneling flap procedures, to introduce the successive development of the approach along with underlying ideas on surgical wound healing and to present contemporary clinical scenarios in step-by-step photograph-illustrated sequences, which aim to provide clinicians with guidance to help them integrate tunneling flap procedures into their daily clinical routine.

Clinician assessments and patient perspectives of single-tooth implant restorations in the esthetic zone of the maxilla: A systematic review

STATEMENT OF PROBLEM

Esthetic outcomes associated with implant dentistry are important to both clinicians and patients. However, esthetic satisfaction may vary between the 2 groups. In order to evaluate the current publications relating to this topic, the following focused question was developed, "what are the quantitative and qualitative differences between clinician evaluations and patient perspectives in the assessment of single-tooth implant outcomes in the esthetic zone?"

PURPOSE

The purpose of this systematic review was to identify differences in esthetic satisfaction between clinicians and patients when evaluating single-tooth implant-supported restorations.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

An electronic search of the Medline database and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (2000 to 2014) was performed. The search was supplemented by a manual search of specific journals. A quality assessment of full-text articles was performed according to Cochrane Collaboration's tool and Newcastle-Ottawa scale for risk of bias assessment. Information regarding outcomes was collected and compared.

RESULTS

The search term combinations identified 555 titles. Subsequent to further review, 11 publications, including 2 randomized controlled trials, were selected for inclusion. Because of the heterogeneity of the study designs, study interventions, and esthetic assessment methods, no meta-analysis was performed. The clinicians identified a satisfactory outcome in 51% to 100% for peri-implant soft tissue and 62% to 90% for implant restorations. Patients showed a mean range score of 43% to 93% for peri-implant soft tissue and 81% to 96% for implant restorations. The visual analog scale score of the dentists was always lower than that of the patients. The review identified correlations between subjective and objective assessments for the Pink Esthetic Score (PES), the Papilla Index (PI), the Implant Crown Aesthetic Index (ICAI), and the modified (mod-ICAI) indices.

CONCLUSIONS

Clinicians are more critical of esthetic outcomes than patients. The PES and the PI correlated with the patients' responses concerning the peri-implant soft tissue. The ICAI and the mod-ICAI showed a correlation of both the peri-implant mucosa and implant-supported crown satisfaction. Thus, a comprehensive and practical index should be developed to assess the esthetic outcomes for single-tooth implant restorations in the esthetic zone.

Rehabilitation of the severely atrophied dentoalveolar ridge in the aesthetic region with corticocancellous grafts from the iliac crest and dental implants

Background

The aim of this study was to assess changes in bone volume after block bone augmentation and placement of dental implants and further evaluate the aesthetic outcome of the treatment.

Material and Methods

9 Patients with atrophied anterior maxilla were included in this study. They received total of 21 implants. Dimensions of the alveolar ridge were measured from cone-beam computed tomography x-rays. The bone level at the implant sites was analysed from intraoral x-rays and the aesthetic outcome was assessed from clinical photographs using a pink aesthetic score (PES) scaling.

Results

The mean gained horizontal bone width at the marginal crest and 5 mm apically was accordingly 2.7mm and 5.0 mm. The mean PES rating was 9.8/14. The survival rate of.

Conclusions

Reconstruction of the atrophied anterior maxilla with bone blocks and dental implants is a safe procedure with high survival rate and acceptable aesthetic outcome.

Key words:Dental implants, aesthetic region, corticocancellous bone grafts, pink aesthetic score, survival rate.