Journal of Periodontal and Implant Science

Korean Academy of Periodontology (대한치주과학회)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Esthetic evaluation of maxillary single-tooth implants in the esthetic zone

  • Cho, Hae-Lyung (Department of Periodontology, Gangneung-Wonju National University College of Dentistry) ;
  • Lee, Jae-Kwan (Department of Periodontology, Gangneung-Wonju National University College of Dentistry) ;
  • Um, Heung-Sik (Department of Periodontology, Gangneung-Wonju National University College of Dentistry) ;
  • Chang, Beom-Seok (Department of Periodontology, Gangneung-Wonju National University College of Dentistry)
  • Received : 2010.05.20
  • Accepted : 2010.07.23
  • Published : 2010.08.31
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

Purpose: The aim of this study is to assess the influence exerted by the observer's dental specialization and compare patients' opinion with observers' opinion of the esthetics of maxillary single-tooth implants in the esthetic zone. Methods: Forty-one adult patients, who were treated with a single implant in the esthetic zone, were enrolled in this study. Eight observers (2 periodontists, 2 prosthodontists, 2 orthodontists and 2 senior dental students) applied the pink esthetic score (PES)/white esthetic score (WES) to 41 implant-supported single restorations twice with an interval of 4 weeks. We used a visual analog scale (VAS) to assess the patient's satisfaction with the treatment outcome from an esthetic point of view. Results: In the PES/WES, very good and moderate intraobserver agreements were noted between the first and second rating. The mean total PES/WES was $11.19{\pm}3.59$. The mean PES was $5.17{\pm}2.29$ and mean WES was $6.02{\pm}1.96$. In the total PES/WES, the difference between the groups was not significant. However, in the WES, the difference between the groups was significant and prosthodontists were found to have assigned poorer ratings than the other groups. Periodontists gave higher ratings than prosthodontists and senior dental students. Orthodontists were clearly more critical than the other observers. The statistical analysis revealed statistically significant correlation between patients' esthetic perception and dentists' perception of the anterior tooth. However, the correlation between the total PES/WES and the VAS score for the first premolar was not statistically significant. Conclusions: The PES/WES is an objective tool in rating the esthetics of implant supported single crowns and adjacent soft tissues. Orthodontists were the most critical observers, while periodontists were more generous than other observers. The statistical analysis revealed a statistically significant correlation between patients' esthetic perception and dentists' perception of the anterior tooth.

Keywords

References

  1. Lindh T, Gunne J, Tillberg A, Molin M. A meta-analysis of implants in partial edentulism. Clin Oral Implants Res 1998;9:80-90. https://doi.org/10.1034/j.1600-0501.1998.090203.x
  2. Wyatt CC, Zarb GA. Treatment outcomes of patients with implant-supported fixed partial prostheses. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 1998;13:204-11.
  3. Noack N, Willer J, Hoffmann J. Long-term results after placement of dental implants: longitudinal study of 1,964 implants over 16 years. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 1999; 14:748-55.
  4. Naert I, Koutsikakis G, Duyck J, Quirynen M, Jacobs R, van Steenberghe D. Biologic outcome of implant-supported restorations in the treatment of partial edentulism. part I: a longitudinal clinical evaluation. Clin Oral Implants Res 2002;13:381-9. https://doi.org/10.1034/j.1600-0501.2002.130406.x
  5. Albrektsson T, Zarb G, Worthington P, Eriksson AR. The long-term efficacy of currently used dental implants: a review and proposed criteria of success. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 1986;1:11-25.
  6. Buser D, Martin W, Belser UC. Optimizing esthetics for implant restorations in the anterior maxilla: anatomic and surgical considerations. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2004;19 Suppl:43-61.
  7. Smith DE, Zarb GA. Criteria for success of osseointegrated endosseous implants. J Prosthet Dent 1989;62:567-72. https://doi.org/10.1016/0022-3913(89)90081-4
  8. Furhauser R, Florescu D, Benesch T, Haas R, Mailath G, Watzek G. Evaluation of soft tissue around single-tooth implant crowns: the pink esthetic score. Clin Oral Implants Res 2005;16:639-44. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-0501.2005.01193.x
  9. Belser UC, Grutter L, Vailati F, Bornstein MM, Weber HP, Buser D. Outcome evaluation of early placed maxillary anterior single-tooth implants using objective esthetic criteria: a cross-sectional, retrospective study in 45 patients with a 2- to 4-year follow-up using pink and white esthetic scores. J Periodontol 2009;80:140-51. https://doi.org/10.1902/jop.2009.080435
  10. Gehrke P, Lobert M, Dhom G. Reproducibility of the pink esthetic score--rating soft tissue esthetics around single-implant restorations with regard to dental observer specialization. J Esthet Restor Dent 2008;20:375-84. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1708-8240.2008.00212.x
  11. Fardal O, Johannessen AC, Linden GJ. Patient perceptions of periodontal therapy completed in a periodontal practice. J Periodontol 2002;73:1060-6. https://doi.org/10.1902/jop.2002.73.9.1060
  12. Czochrowska EM, Stenvik A, Bjercke B, Zachrisson BU. Outcome of tooth transplantation: survival and success rates 17-41 years posttreatment. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2002;121:110-9. https://doi.org/10.1067/mod.2002.119979
  13. Wolfart S, Thormann H, Freitag S, Kern M. Assessment ofdental appearance following changes in incisor proportions. Eur J Oral Sci 2005;113:159-65. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-0722.2005.00206.x
  14. Belser U, Buser D, Higginbottom F. Consensus statements and recommended clinical procedures regarding esthetics in implant dentistry. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2004;19 Suppl:73-4.
  15. An KY, Lee JY, Kim SJ, Choi JI. Perception of maxillary anterior esthetics by dental professionals and laypeople and survey of gingival topography in healthy young subjects. Int J Periodontics Restorative Dent 2009;29:535-41.
  16. Flores-Mir C, Silva E, Barriga MI, Lagravere MO, Major PW. Lay person's perception of smile aesthetics in dental and facial views. J Orthod 2004;31:204-9. https://doi.org/10.1179/146531204225022416
  17. Miller CJ. The smile line as a guide to anterior esthetics. Dent Clin North Am 1989;33:157-64.
  18. Kokich VO Jr, Kiyak HA, Shapiro PA. Comparing the perception of dentists and lay people to altered dental esthetics. J Esthet Dent 1999;11:311-24. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1708-8240.1999.tb00414.x
  19. Brisman AS. Esthetics: a comparison of dentists' and patients' concepts. J Am Dent Assoc 1980;100:345-52. https://doi.org/10.14219/jada.archive.1980.0093
  20. Choquet V, Hermans M, Adriaenssens P, Daelemans P, Tarnow DP, Malevez C. Clinical and radiographic evaluation of the papilla level adjacent to single-tooth dental implants. A retrospective study in the maxillary anterior region. J Periodontol 2001;72:1364-71. https://doi.org/10.1902/jop.2001.72.10.1364
  21. Renouard F, Rangert B. Risk factors in implant dentistry: simplified clinical analysis for predictable treatment. 2nd ed. Chicago: Quintessence International; 2008.

Cited by

  1. Single‐tooth Morse taper connection implants placed in fresh extraction sockets of the anterior maxilla: an aesthetic evaluation vol.23, pp.11, 2010, https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-0501.2011.02307.x
  2. Single‐Tooth Implants with Different Neck Designs: A Randomized Clinical Trial Evaluating the Aesthetic Outcome vol.15, pp.3, 2010, https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1708-8208.2011.00372.x
  3. Modern treatment of upper permanent canine absence - Case report vol.19, pp.1, 2010, https://doi.org/10.2478/arsm-2013-0010
  4. Esthetic Evaluation of Single-Tooth Morse Taper Connection Implants Placed in Fresh Extraction Sockets or Healed Sites vol.39, pp.2, 2010, https://doi.org/10.1563/aaid-joi-d-11-00112
  5. Esthetic Evaluation of Implants Placed after Orthodontic Treatment in Patients with Congenitally Missing Lateral Incisors vol.26, pp.1, 2010, https://doi.org/10.1111/jerd.12081
  6. Evaluation of the influence exerted by different dental specialty backgrounds and measuring instrument reproducibility on esthetic aspects of maxillary implant‐supported single crown vol.26, pp.3, 2010, https://doi.org/10.1111/clr.12532
  7. Esthetic outcome of single implant crowns following type 1 and type 3 implant placement: a systematic review vol.26, pp.7, 2010, https://doi.org/10.1111/clr.12334
  8. Esthetic outcome and alterations of soft tissue around single implant crowns: a 2‐year prospective study vol.26, pp.8, 2010, https://doi.org/10.1111/clr.12408
  9. Does Ridge Preservation at the Time of Tooth Extraction Improve Soft Tissue Volume and/or Implant Esthetics? A Review of Current Evidence vol.5, pp.3, 2010, https://doi.org/10.1902/cap.2014.140007
  10. Esthetic Evaluation of Implant Crowns and Peri‐Implant Soft Tissue in the Anterior Maxilla: Comparison and Reproducibility of Three Different Indices vol.18, pp.3, 2010, https://doi.org/10.1111/cid.12306
  11. A retrospective evaluation of aesthetic outcomes for single‐tooth implants in the anterior maxilla vol.27, pp.4, 2010, https://doi.org/10.1111/clr.12593
  12. End points and assessments in esthetic dental treatment vol.8, pp.2, 2010, https://doi.org/10.2186/ajps.8.161
  13. Aesthetic perception of single implants placed in the anterior zone. A cross-sectional study vol.21, pp.4, 2010, https://doi.org/10.4317/medoral.21155
  14. Esthetic outcome for maxillary anterior single implants assessed by different dental specialists vol.8, pp.5, 2016, https://doi.org/10.4047/jap.2016.8.5.345
  15. Clinical Application of the PES/WES Index on Natural Teeth: Case Report and Literature Review vol.2017, pp.None, 2017, https://doi.org/10.1155/2017/9659062
  16. Assessment of the Efficacy and Safety of Hyaluronic Acid Gel Injection in the Restoration of Fullness of the Upper Lips vol.10, pp.2, 2017, https://doi.org/10.4103/jcas.jcas_115_16
  17. Monolithic Zirconia Implant Restorations using CAD/CAM Double Scanning vol.22, pp.3, 2010, https://doi.org/10.32542/implantology.20180012
  18. The application of a newly designed L‐shaped titanium mesh for GBR with simultaneous implant placement in the esthetic zone: A retrospective case series study vol.21, pp.5, 2010, https://doi.org/10.1111/cid.12726
  19. Esthetic evaluation of implant-supported single crowns: a comparison of objective and patient-reported outcomes vol.5, pp.None, 2019, https://doi.org/10.1186/s40729-018-0153-3
  20. Reproducibility and validity of anterior implant esthetic indices: A review vol.24, pp.4, 2010, https://doi.org/10.4103/jisp.jisp_528_19
  21. Esthetic Assessment Succeeding Anterior Atrophic Maxilla Augmentation with Cancellous Bone-Block Allograft and Late Restoration Loading vol.10, pp.20, 2010, https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm10204635
  22. 다층 지르코니아를 이용한 임플란트 전치부 수복 증례 vol.59, pp.4, 2010, https://doi.org/10.4047/jkap.2021.59.4.469