AIM: To evaluate the aesthetic outcome of single-tooth implants in the aesthetic zone with different neck designs from a professional's and patient's perception. MATERIALS AND METHODS:Ninety-three patients with a missing anterior tooth in the maxilla were randomly assigned to be treated with an implant with a smooth neck, a rough neck with grooves or a scalloped rough neck with grooves. Implants were installed in healed sites. One year after definitive crown placement (18 months post-implant placement), photographs were taken and the aesthetic outcome was assessed according to two objective aesthetic indexes: pink esthetic score/white esthetic score (PES/WES) and implant crown aesthetic index (ICAI). A questionnaire was used to assess the aesthetic outcome and general satisfaction from a patient's perception. standardized radiographs were taken to measure marginal bone level changes. RESULTS: One implant was lost. Although there was a significant difference in marginal bone loss between the different implant neck designs (smooth neck 1.19±0.82mm, rough neck 0.90±0.57mm, scalloped neck 2.01±0.77mm), there were no differences in aesthetic outcome. According to the professional's assessments using PES/WES and ICAI, 79.3% and 62% of the cases showed acceptable crown aesthetics, and 59.8% and 56.5% of the cases showed acceptable mucosa aesthetics. Overall, patients were satisfied about the aesthetics of the mucosa (81.5%) and crown (93.3%), and general patient satisfaction was high (9.0±1.0 out of a maximum of 10). According to the professional's assessment, a pre-implant augmentation procedure was associated with less favorable aesthetics of the mucosa. CONCLUSION: This study shows that the aesthetics of single-tooth implants in the maxillary aesthetic zone appears to be independent of the implant neck designs applied but dependent on the need for pre-implant surgery.
RCT Entities:
AIM: To evaluate the aesthetic outcome of single-tooth implants in the aesthetic zone with different neck designs from a professional's and patient's perception. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Ninety-three patients with a missing anterior tooth in the maxilla were randomly assigned to be treated with an implant with a smooth neck, a rough neck with grooves or a scalloped rough neck with grooves. Implants were installed in healed sites. One year after definitive crown placement (18 months post-implant placement), photographs were taken and the aesthetic outcome was assessed according to two objective aesthetic indexes: pink esthetic score/white esthetic score (PES/WES) and implant crown aesthetic index (ICAI). A questionnaire was used to assess the aesthetic outcome and general satisfaction from a patient's perception. standardized radiographs were taken to measure marginal bone level changes. RESULTS: One implant was lost. Although there was a significant difference in marginal bone loss between the different implant neck designs (smooth neck 1.19±0.82mm, rough neck 0.90±0.57mm, scalloped neck 2.01±0.77mm), there were no differences in aesthetic outcome. According to the professional's assessments using PES/WES and ICAI, 79.3% and 62% of the cases showed acceptable crown aesthetics, and 59.8% and 56.5% of the cases showed acceptable mucosa aesthetics. Overall, patients were satisfied about the aesthetics of the mucosa (81.5%) and crown (93.3%), and general patient satisfaction was high (9.0±1.0 out of a maximum of 10). According to the professional's assessment, a pre-implant augmentation procedure was associated with less favorable aesthetics of the mucosa. CONCLUSION: This study shows that the aesthetics of single-tooth implants in the maxillary aesthetic zone appears to be independent of the implant neck designs applied but dependent on the need for pre-implant surgery.
Authors: Mauro Marincola; Giorgio Lombardo; Jacopo Pighi; Giovanni Corrocher; Anna Mascellaro; Jeffrey Lehrberg; Pier Francesco Nocini Journal: Case Rep Dent Date: 2015-11-15
Authors: José Luis Calvo-Guirado; Raúl Jiménez-Soto; Carlos Pérez Albacete-Martínez; Manuel Fernández-Domínguez; Sérgio Alexandre Gehrke; José Eduardo Maté-Sánchez de Val Journal: Materials (Basel) Date: 2018-10-17 Impact factor: 3.623