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

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.

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.

The peri-implant mucosa color: A systematic appraisal of methods for its assessment and clinical significance

BACKGROUND

Peri-implant mucosa color (PMC) seems to be one of the main parameters affecting the esthetic outcome of implant therapy. However, more emphasis should be given to its assessment and reporting.

PURPOSE

To describe the available evidence on methods to assess and report the color of the peri-implant mucosa (PMC) and the respective clinical relevance.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

A comprehensive electronic and manual search was performed to identify clinical studies reporting on PMC.

RESULTS

A total of 121 studies were included. PMC was evaluated at the time of the follow-up visit (chairside) in 45.5% studies. PMC assessment was performed qualitatively, by comparing PMC with adjacent and/or contralateral gingiva (78.6%) or quantitatively, using spectrophotometry (20.7%) or a software on clinical photographs (0.8%). The most performed method to assess PMC was through esthetic indices (76.9%), either at the time of the follow-up visit (chairside) or at later time point using photographs. Quantitative reporting of PMC included averages of points from esthetic indices or color differences to natural gingiva expressed with the CIELAB color system. PMC assessment allowed describing color discrepancies compared to natural gingiva, evaluating color changes over time, and comparing the outcomes of different treatment modalities. PMC assessment through spectrophotometry was additionally utilized to assess the role of mucosal thickness (MT) on PMC.

CONCLUSIONS

Various methods for PMC assessment and reporting were described, including visual assessment, mainly through esthetic indices, and spectrophotometry. PMC evaluation has allowed to demonstrate the factors affecting the color of the peri-implant soft tissue, such as the type of abutment/restoration, MT, and soft tissue augmentation.

Integration of collagen fibers in connective tissue with dental implant in the transmucosal region

Dental implants have been widely accepted as an ideal therapy to replace the missing teeth for its good performance in aspects of mechanical properties and aesthetic outcomes. Its restorative success is contributed by not only the successful osseointegration of the implant but also the tight soft tissue integration, especially the collagen fibers, in the transmucosal region. Soft tissue attaching to the dental implant/abutment is overall similar, but in some aspects distinct with that seen around natural teeth and soft tissue integration can be enhanced via several surface modification methods. This review is going to focus on the current knowledge of the transmucosal zone around the dental implants (compared with natural teeth), and latest strategies in use to fine-tune the collagen fibers assembly in the connective tissue, in an attempt to enhance soft tissue integration.

Clinical esthetic comparison between monolithic high-translucency multilayer zirconia and traditional veneered zirconia for single implant restoration in maxillary esthetic areas: Prosthetic and patient-centered outcomes

Background/purpose

Clinical esthetic evidence for the performance of monolithic high-translucency multilayer zirconia is lacking. The aim of this study was to compare monolithic high-translucency multilayer zirconia with traditional veneered zirconia in clinical situation.

Material and methods

A total of 30 participants who were provided with both monolithic zirconia crowns (Group 1) and traditional veneered crowns (Group 2) for single implant restoration in maxillary esthetic areas were enrolled. Patients' subjective outcome (Visual Analog Scale, VAS) were recorded. Photos were taken and then evaluated by 9 evaluators with Pink and White Esthetic Score (WES). Wilcoxon signed rank test was used for comparison between Group 1 and Group 2 in VAS, WES and five variables in WES. Kendall's coefficient of concordance test was used to calculate inter-rater reliability of WES variables. Spearman correlation was used to analyze association between patients' outcome and evaluators' scores.

Results

There was no significant difference in patients' subjective outcome between monolithic zirconia and traditional veneered crowns: overall VAS were 9.0 (8.0–9.0) and 9.0 (8.5–9.5), respectively (P > 0.05). However, in professional view, significant difference between Group 1 and Group 2 in WES was observed: 7.5 (6.0–8.0) and 8.0 (6.5–8.5), respectively (P < 0.05). Kendall's test showed, among WES variables, translucency demonstrated the highest agreement. Professionally reported evaluations did not correlate with patient-reported outcomes (Spearman correlation were 0.246 and 0.224 for Group 1 and Group 2, respectively).

Conclusion

Within the limitation of this study, it can be concluded that monolithic high-translucency multilayer zirconia restoration might be a treatment modality.

Immediately provisionalized tapered conical connection implants for single-tooth restorations in the maxillary esthetic zone: a 5-year prospective single-cohort multicenter analysis

Objectives

This open, single-cohort, multicenter, prospective study investigated the efficacy of immediately provisionalized tapered conical connection implant for single-tooth restorations in the anterior and premolar regions of the maxilla after 5 years of function.

Materials and methods

All implants were placed in healed sites and immediately provisionalized. MBLs, soft-tissue parameters, and oral-health impact profile (OHIP) were evaluated at implant insertion, 6, 12, 24, 36, and 60 months. Paired Wilcoxon signed-rank tests and Kaplan–Meier survival analysis was used for statistical and implant survival/success analyses, respectively.

Results

Seventy-seven patients (81 implants) completed the 5-year follow-up. The 5-year cumulative survival and success rates were 97.8%, and the mean MBL change from implant insertion to 5 years was − 0.80 ± 1.13 mm. Optimal papilla index scores were observed at 90.1% of sites at 5 years compared with 32.8% of sites at insertion. Pink esthetic score, modified bleeding and plaque indices, and OHIP showed statistically significant improvement at the 5-year follow-up.

Conclusions

Immediately provisionalized tapered conical connection implants promote marginal bone stability and excellent esthetic outcomes after 5 years of function.

Clinical relevance

This treatment is a viable option for patients requiring immediately provisionalized single-tooth restorations in the esthetic zone and shows favorable long-term clinical outcomes, including marginal bone stability and excellent esthetics.

Esthetic evaluation of single implant-supported prostheses: Comparative analysis of the reliability of the esthetic indices

OBJECTIVES

To carry out a detailed analysis of four indices proposed for the esthetic evaluation of implant-supported single crowns in the anterior maxillary sector.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

Four esthetic indices were selected: the Pink and white esthetic score, the Copenhagen Index Score, the peri-implant and crown index (PICI), and the implant restoration esthetic index (IREI). The examiners were 15 expert subjects and 30 nonexpert ones. The intraclass correlation coefficient was used to assess reproducibility. The validity and the correlation of the esthetic indices results with the perception of nonexpert subjects were evaluated using the Pearson's correlation.

RESULTS

For inter- and intra-observer reproducibility, all the esthetic indices had an intraclass correlation coefficient value>0.8. As for validity, the highest correlation values were found for the PICI and for the IREI. The values of correlation with the perception of nonexpert subjects did not exceed 0.3 for all esthetic indices.

CONCLUSIONS

All esthetic indices evaluated presented good intra- and inter-rater reproducibility. Validity was considered satisfactory only for the PICI and the IREI. The correlation with the perception of nonexpert subjects showed a weak correlation with all the indices considered.

CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE

An approved esthetic indice with proven reproducibility and validity could provide a better objective overview of one's own esthetic results in the daily practice. It could also help to record the results over time to analyze the stability of the treatment procedure. The esthetic results of the different surgical and prosthetic protocols can also be compared, which facilitates the analysis of the indications relevance and clinical effects. However, low reproducibility according to the specialty and the practitioner's level of expertise was observed. A heterogeneity of results was also noted when compared with those of nonexpert subjects.

Aesthetic Outcomes of Early Occlusal Loaded SLA Dental Implants with Hydroxyl Ion Modified Surface-A 12 Months Prospective Study

Background: Many efforts have been made recently to arrange a newer, more hydrophilic and more osteoconductive implant surface. One of the possible options in this matter is modification with hydroxyl ion. Materials and Methods: Forty implants with the diameters 3.5 and 4.0 mm were inserted as a single missing tooth restoration protocol in the frontal aspect of the maxilla. All implants were loaded early in a 4 week period. Prior to and during the surgery, the following indices were considered: height of keratinized tissue, the thickness of soft tissue, and the initial level of bone tissue. After 12 months, the implant and the tissues in its direct vicinity were evaluated once more with the following indices: marginal bone loss (MBL), height of keratinized tissue (HKT), probing pocket depth (PPD), pink and white aesthetics scores (PES, WES), as well as pain sensations combined with the procedure (VAS). All results were related to the diameter of the implant and thickness of periodontal biotype. Results: High aesthetic outcomes were reported regardless of soft tissue thickness and implant diameter. The VAS score was higher for the 4.0 implant group, and the thickness of soft tissue had no influence on VAS. In case of implantation in thin or soft tissue, higher MBL levels were reported (0.26 mm), while in case of a thick phenotype, MBL was 0.06 mm. Conclusions: Hydrophilic surface implants can be used for a protocol of early functional occlusal loading. The initial thickness of soft tissue does not influence aesthetic outcomes and does not raise pain perception, although it may elevate crestal bone resorption.

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.

Biological and esthetic outcome of immediate dental implant with the adjunct pretreatment of immediate implants with platelet-rich plasma or photofunctionalization: A randomized controlled trial

Aim

The purpose of the study was to assess biological and esthetic outcomes of immediate dental implant in esthetic zone with the adjunct pretreatment of immediate implants with photofunctionalization or platelet-rich plasma in comparison to standard tapered root form implant without pretreatment.

Settings and Design

Patients visiting department of Prosthodontics of a tertiary care health Institution. Design of the study was randomized controlled trial.

Materials and Methods

Ninety subjects who required replacement of maxillary anterior teeth immediately after extraction were selected and randomly divided into three groups: control group and two case groups. Two case groups were treated with immediate implants with pretreatment with Photofunctionalization (PF group) or platelet-rich plasma (PRP group). Delayed loading protocol was followed with prosthesis given after 6 months. Follow-up was performed at 2nd and 4th weeks and 2, 4, 6, and 12 months (P < 0.05). Biological outcomes (mean marginal bone loss, implant stability), esthetic outcome (pink esthetic score and white esthetic score), and success and survival rate were evaluated.

Statistical Analysis Used

Outcomes were compared using one-way ANOVA, while intragroup changes with baseline and follow up were assesed using repeated-measures ANOVA. Statistical analyses were performed using Statistical Package for Social Sciences version 25.0 (SPSS Inc., Chicago, IL, USA). The level of significance was set at <.05.

Results

Mean marginal bone loss was not significantly different in PF group and PRP group than the control group. PF group and PRP group showed significantly greater implant stability as compared to the control group. Pink and white esthetic scores were not significantly different among groups.

Conclusion

Pretreatment of commercial dental implants with PF or PRP exhibited a statistically significant difference in implant stability but not with other outcomes.

Failure Rate, Marginal Bone Loss, and Pink Esthetic with Socket-Shield Technique for Immediate Dental Implant Placement in the Esthetic Zone. A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Aim: To compare the failure rate, marginal bone loss, and pink esthetic for the socket-shield technique and the conventional technique for immediate dental implant placement in the esthetic zone. Material and methods: A systematic literature review and meta-analysis, based on the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) recommendations, of clinical studies that evaluated the failure rate, marginal bone loss, and pink esthetic with the socket-shield technique for immediate dental implant placement in the esthetic zone was performed. A total of 4 databases were consulted in the literature search: PubMed-MEDLINE, Scopus, Embase, and Web of Science. After eliminating duplicated articles and applying the inclusion criteria, 16 articles were selected for the qualitative and quantitative analysis. Results: Four randomized controlled trials, five prospective clinical studies, four retrospective studies, and three case series were included in the meta-analysis. The dental implant failure rate for the socket-shield technique for immediate dental implant placement was 1.37% (95% CI, 0.21-2.54%); however, no statistically significant differences between the conventional and socket-shield technique were found. The estimated mean difference in the marginal bone loss for the socket-shield technique was -0.5 mm (95% CI, -0.82 to -0.18) and statistically significant (p < 0.01), with a high heterogeneity (I² = 99%). The mean pink esthetic score was 12.27 (Q test = 4.47; p-value = 0.61; I² = 0%). The difference in pink esthetic between the conventional (n = 55) and socket-shield techniques (n = 55) for immediate dental implant placement was 1.15 (95% CI, 0.73-1.58; Q test = 8.88; p value = 0.11; I² = 44%). The follow-up time was found to be significant (beta coefficient = 0.023; R² = 85.6%; QM = 3.82; p = 0.049) for the PES for the socket-shield technique. Conclusions: Within the limitations of this systematic review with meta-analysis, the dental implant failure rate did not differ between the socket-shield technique and conventional technique for immediate implant placement in the esthetic zone. However, a lower marginal bone loss and higher pink esthetic scores were found for the socket-shield technique compared to the conventional technique.

Aesthetic Parameters and Patient-Perspective Assessment Tools for Maxillary Anterior Single Implants

Background

This review aimed to concisely describe the current aesthetic objective indices for a single-implant maxillary anterior crown. The secondary aim was to propose introducing a unified, standardized questionnaire for adequately collecting patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) in implant dentistry.

Materials and Methods

A literature review was conducted using both EMBASE/Ovid and MEDLINE/PubMed databases by combining keywords and Emtree/Mesh terms related to “Esthetics,” “Self-Assessment or Surveys and Questionnaires,” and “Single-Tooth Dental Implants.”

Results

The most meaningful aesthetic objective indices for single implants in the literature are the Pink Esthetic Score (PES), the Papilla Presence Index (PPI), Peri‐Implant and Crown Index (PICI), PES/White Esthetic Score (PES/WES), the Implant Crown Aesthetic Index (ICAI), and a modified version of the ICAI (mod-ICAI) index. Clearly, PES/WES is still the most widely accepted tool. It is encouraging to observe that there is an increasing tendency in recent years to report PROMs more frequently in the implant dentistry literature. We proposed the implementation of a unified, standardized questionnaire using a self-administered visual analogue scale (VAS) scoring system, which evaluates overall satisfaction, comfort, tooth appearance, gingival appearance, function, and hygiene complexity. This tool should be validated in the oral implantology research context for its regular implementation or further development.

Conclusions

Conducting qualitative studies among dental implant patients who received few implants or single-tooth implant reconstructions in the aesthetic zone may help dental researchers understand better how to efficiently develop and validate a quantitative instrument. This standard tool would reduce heterogeneity bias by providing comparable data between studies.

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.

A randomized controlled study comparing guided bone regeneration with connective tissue graft to re-establish buccal convexity: One-year aesthetic and patient-reported outcomes

OBJECTIVES

To compare guided bone regeneration (GBR) with connective tissue graft (CTG) in terms of aesthetic and patient-reported outcomes (PROMs).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Patients with a single tooth gap in the anterior maxilla and horizontal alveolar defect were enrolled in a single-blind RCT. All sites had a buccopalatal bone dimension of at least 6 mm, received a single implant and were randomly allocated to the control (GBR) or test group (CTG) to re-establish buccal soft tissue convexity. Primary outcomes were Pink Esthetic Score (PES) and Mucosal Scarring Index (MSI) assessed after 1 year. Secondary outcomes included PROMs registered during the early stages of healing and after 1 year.

RESULTS

Twenty-one patients were included per group (control: 11 females, mean age 51; test: nine females, mean age 48). Although there was no significant difference in the PES between the groups (control: 10.11; test: 10.48; p = .577), the MSI was significantly lower in the test (1.10) than in the control group (2.53) (p = .017). Based on descriptive statistics, the latter demonstrated wider scars, more colour mismatch and slightly more suture marks. However, these were not considered disturbing by the patients given similar VAS on soft tissue aesthetics (control: 84; test: 87). Oedema and haematoma were rated twice as high in the control group on at least two postoperative time points, and patients took more painkillers (7.10 vs. 4.86). OHIP-14 decreased in both groups between baseline and 1-year follow-up, indicative of less discomfort in daily life. Differences in MSI and PROMs between the groups may be explained by the need of a vertical releasing incision in order to achieve sufficient access for GBR, periosteal incisions and the use of biomaterials that may induce inflammation.

CONCLUSION

GBR and CTG resulted in favourable aesthetic outcomes as assessed by professionals and patients. However, given additional vertical and periosteal incisions, GBR resulted in more scarring, postoperative discomfort and a higher need for painkillers.

Correlation between Buccal Bone Thickness at Implant Placement in Healed Sites and Buccal Soft Tissue Maturation Pattern: A Prospective Three-Year Study

Background: Optimal aesthetic implant restoration is a combination of a visually pleasing prosthesis and adequate surrounding peri-implant soft tissue architecture. This study describes the influence of the residual buccal bone thickness (BBT), measured at the time of implant placement, on the soft tissue maturation during three years of follow-up. Methods: Seventy-eight implants were enrolled in the present study. The BBT was assessed at the surgical stage and each case assigned to Group 1 (BBT values ≤0.5 mm), Group 2 (BBT values >0.5 and <1.5 mm), or Group 3 (BBT values ≥1.5 mm). Only native bone and healed sites were included. The tooth height (TH), based on the distance between the buccal free gingival margin at the zenith level and the crown incisal edge, according to the main axis of the tooth, was monitored at one, two, and three years from the final prosthodontic rehabilitation to determine any occurrence of recession or coronal repositioning of the gums over time. A Pearson Two-Tailed test was applied and the significance level set at p ≤ 0.05. Results: For BBT values ≤0.5 mm, the buccal gum at three years showed an average recession of 1.22 ± 0.41 mm. For BBT values >0.5 and <1.5 mm, the buccal gum also showed recession of 0.64 ± 0.29 mm. In contrast, for BBT values ≥1.5 mm, the buccal gum showed coronal growth of 0.77 ± 0.22 mm. The differences between the groups were significant (p ≤ 0.01) at all times. Conclusion: The BBT at the time of implant placement was found to affect the buccal gingival margin stability over three years of observation.

Gingival recession behavior with immediate implant placement in the anterior maxilla with buccal dehiscence without additional augmentation—a pilot study

Background

Immediate implant placement in the presence of intact extraction alveoli has frequently been reported, while hardly any reports on immediate implant placement in missing buccal bone can be found in literature.

Objectives

This pilot study evaluates esthetic outcome and soft and hard tissue level changes of immediate implant placement with immediate provisionalization in patients with partially/completely missing buccal bone without any further augmentation procedure in the maxillary anterior zone.

Material and methods

Twelve patients (TG) with partially to completely missing buccal bone designated for extraction and flapless immediate implant insertion in the anterior zone of the maxilla were included. Patients randomly selected out of a larger group of patients with immediate implants with intact alveoli served as controls (CG). Immediate provisionalization was done without any further augmentation of the alveolar ridge. Marginal hard and soft tissue levels, PES, and implant success were evaluated during a 1-year observation period.

Results

The defect of the buccal alveolar bone was 4.96 mm (min., 2.26 mm; max., 9.68 mm) and the mean mesio-distal extension 4.25 mm (min., 3.2 mm; max., 5.91 mm). Preoperative PES differed significantly between TG (9.68) and CG (12.25) and improved in TG postoperatively with no significant difference to CG after 1 year (TG, 10.91; CG, 11.3). The buccal soft tissue level remained almost unchanged over the observation period (TG preop, 0.86 mm ± 0.90 mm; 1 year, 0.91 mm ± 0.96 mm; CG preop, 0.98 mm ± 0.87 mm; 1 year, 0.98 mm ± 0.87 mm and did not show any correlation with either the mesial/distal bone level or the initial buccal vertical defect at any point of time.

Conclusions

These clinical results provide evidence that immediate implant placement without additional augmentation, but with immediate provisionalization might be a viable treatment alternative even with missing buccal plate in the esthetic maxillary zone.

Zirconia implant abutments supporting single all-ceramic crowns in anterior and premolar regions: A six-year retrospective study

BACKGROUND

Clinical studies regarding zirconia implant abutments reported good survival rates in the short-term observation period. The purpose of this study was to assess the six-year clinical performance of zirconia abutments supporting all-ceramic crowns in anterior and premolar regions.

METHODS

The patients received zirconia implant abutments to support all-ceramic crowns in Chang-Gung Medical Center during the period August 2010 to August 2011 were enrolled. In the following six years of observation period after the implant-crown had finished, the clinical parameters of all of the included patients were registered on a special form. The records regarding the following variables: age, gender, implant location, the condition of edentulous site before implant placement, esthetic performance at baseline, presence or absence of technical complications, and biological outcomes were registered and scrutinized for evaluation.

RESULTS

Out of the 32 zirconia implant abutments and 32 all-ceramic crowns that were followed for six years. Neither abutments nor crowns were lost, yielding 100% survival rates for both zirconia abutments and crowns. The esthetic outcomes were excellent except that a score of 2 was given to two restorations. With regard to technical complications, there was one instance of abutment screw loosening, two cases of veneering ceramic chipping, one restoration with occlusal roughness, and three instances of crowns loosening. Overall, the success rates were 96.8% and 81.2% for abutments and crowns respectively. In biological performance, only 1 implant was classified in group II (satisfactory survival) in the Misch classification, while all the others were classified in group I (excellent).

CONCLUSIONS

Zirconia abutments supporting all-ceramic crowns demonstrated high survival rate, good biological and esthetic results. While some technical complications were frequently observed, the complication-free rates were 96.8% for abutments and 81.2% for crowns in the medium-term observation period.

Ratio between Height and Thickness of the Buccal Tissues: A Pilot Study on 32 Single Implants

BACKGROUND

Previous studies have suggested that mucosal height is related to the bone level and soft tissue thickness. The purpose of this pilot study was to investigate the ratio between the height and width of the tissues around single implants with a conical connection and platform switching.

METHODS

All patients receiving single implants (Anyridge^®, MegaGen, Gyeongbuk, South Korea) and restored with single crowns, in a three-month period, were included in this study. After a provisionalization of 12 months, precision impressions were taken and stone casts were poured for measurements. For each implant, two values were collected at the buccal site: the mucosal height (MH), calculated from the vestibular shoulder of the implant to the upper gingival margin of the supra-implant tissue; and the mucosal thickness (MT), calculated from the vestibular shoulder of the analogue to the external mucosa point perpendicular to the implant major axis. Mean, standard deviation (SD), and confidence intervals (CI 95%) for MH and MT, as well as their ratios, were calculated. Correlation between MH and MT was assessed by Pearson's correlation coefficient, with significance level set at 0.05.

RESULTS

32 single Anyridge^® implants were eligible for this evaluation. The mean MH was 3.44 mm (±1.28), the mean MT was 3.29 (±1.46). The average of the ratio between MH and MT of the supra-implant mucosa was therefore 1:1.19 (±0.55). The relation between MH and MT was statistically significant at p ≤ 0.01 (Pearson two-tailed 95% CI).

CONCLUSIONS

Our study found a constant relationship between width and height of the peri-implant mucosa. However, our results are different from those of Nozawa et al., who found a ratio of 1:1.5 between height and thickness of the peri-implant tissues. This may be determined by the different sample and follow-up period, as well as by the implants used in our study.

Esthetic evaluation of implant-supported single crowns: a comparison of objective and patient-reported outcomes

Background

This study investigated objective and patient-reported esthetic outcomes and their correlation for single-tooth implant restorations in the maxillary anterior region.

Methods

Nineteen patients were included. Gingival biotypes and smile lines were evaluated. Esthetic evaluation was performed according to the pink and white esthetic scores (PES and WES). Patients rated their satisfaction regarding the implant treatment using a subjective outcome questionnaire and a 10-cm visual analogue scale (VAS).

Results

The mean PES and WES were 10.7 (range 5–13, SD ± 2.24) and 8.6 (range 8–10, SD ± 0.60), respectively. The overall mean VAS was 8.54 ± 0.36 (range 3.8–9.8). No significant correlation was found between VAS and PES or WES (p = 0.475, p = 0.984, respectively). PES and WES scores for gingival biotypes failed to show any statistically significant difference (p = 0.701, p = 0.831). There was a significant negative correlation between the smile line and VAS; indicating that patients with lower smile lines expressed higher patient satisfaction (p = .001).

Conclusions

Professionally reported esthetic outcomes (PES and WES results) may not correlate with patient-reported outcomes. Smile line is a significant factor in patient satisfaction, which should be evaluated thoroughly prior to implant placement in the anterior maxilla.