OBJECTIVE: The purpose of the present systematic review was to evaluate the scientific literature regarding the professional assessment of aesthetics in implant dentistry. MATERIAL AND METHODS: An electronic search of Medline database and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials was performed, and complemented by a manual search. Clinical or validation studies (Part 1) and randomized-controlled trials (RCTs) (Part 2) reporting parameters and methods for the assessment of aesthetics were included. The information regarding the assessment of aesthetics was extracted. The methodological quality of RCTs was evaluated by means of the Cochrane Collaboration's Tool for assessing risk of bias. RESULTS: The search yielded 149 and 32 publications in Part 1 and Part 2, respectively. A great diversity with regard to parameters, methods and measurement units used for the assessment of aesthetics was found among the included studies. With respect to time points of assessment there were significant differences between the RCTs. Only two RCTs fulfilled all the criteria of the The Cochrane Collaboration's Tool for assessing risk of bias. CONCLUSIONS: Due to the differences of the study designs, parameters and methods used for the assessment of aesthetics, comparisons between studies should be interpreted with caution. Only a limited number of RCTs offer sound evidence on aesthetic outcomes in implant dentistry.
OBJECTIVE: The purpose of the present systematic review was to evaluate the scientific literature regarding the professional assessment of aesthetics in implant dentistry. MATERIAL AND METHODS: An electronic search of Medline database and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials was performed, and complemented by a manual search. Clinical or validation studies (Part 1) and randomized-controlled trials (RCTs) (Part 2) reporting parameters and methods for the assessment of aesthetics were included. The information regarding the assessment of aesthetics was extracted. The methodological quality of RCTs was evaluated by means of the Cochrane Collaboration's Tool for assessing risk of bias. RESULTS: The search yielded 149 and 32 publications in Part 1 and Part 2, respectively. A great diversity with regard to parameters, methods and measurement units used for the assessment of aesthetics was found among the included studies. With respect to time points of assessment there were significant differences between the RCTs. Only two RCTs fulfilled all the criteria of the The Cochrane Collaboration's Tool for assessing risk of bias. CONCLUSIONS: Due to the differences of the study designs, parameters and methods used for the assessment of aesthetics, comparisons between studies should be interpreted with caution. Only a limited number of RCTs offer sound evidence on aesthetic outcomes in implant dentistry.
Authors: Sara Bakkali; María Rizo-Gorrita; Manuel-María Romero-Ruiz; José Luis Gutiérrez-Pérez; Daniel Torres-Lagares; Maria Ángeles Serrera-Figallo Journal: Clin Oral Investig Date: 2021-01-29 Impact factor: 3.573
Authors: Miha Pirc; Oliver Harbeck; Vitor M Sapata; Jürg Hüsler; Ronald E Jung; Christoph H F Hämmerle; Daniel S Thoma Journal: Clin Oral Investig Date: 2020-10-15 Impact factor: 3.573