OBJECTIVES: Single-tooth replacement of anterior mandibular teeth is frequently complicated by insufficient bucco-lingual bone width and limited mesio-distal space available for implant placement. The aim of the present study was to assess implant esthetics in the partially edentulous anterior mandible. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Esthetic evaluation of 43 anterior mandibular single-tooth implants in 15 women and 28 men was performed using esthetic indices (PES = Pink Esthetic Score, PI = Papilla Index, SES = Subjective Esthetic Score) as well as subjective patients' Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) ratings. Clinical and radiological parameters (implant and crown dimensions, pocket depth, bleeding on probing, plaque, keratinized mucosa, marginal bone level, and distance to adjacent teeth) were tested for influence. RESULTS: Implant esthetics were judged satisfactory (PES ≤10) in 42% of implants compared with a patient satisfaction rate of 87%. Correlation between objective indices (PES/PI: rs = 0.62, PES/SES: rs = -0.73, PI/SES: rs = -0.48) was highly significant (P ≤ 0.001); however, no association to subjective patients' ratings could be observed. Type of prosthetic restoration (single crown vs. tulip-shaped double crowns), mesio-distal crown width as well as anatomic crown length significantly affected esthetic scores. Patients' judgment, by contrast, could not be associated to any prognostic factor. CONCLUSION: Subjective patient satisfaction with implant esthetics in the partially edentulous anterior mandible is high, however, remains hard to predict or objectively quantify.
OBJECTIVES: Single-tooth replacement of anterior mandibular teeth is frequently complicated by insufficient bucco-lingual bone width and limited mesio-distal space available for implant placement. The aim of the present study was to assess implant esthetics in the partially edentulous anterior mandible. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Esthetic evaluation of 43 anterior mandibular single-tooth implants in 15 women and 28 men was performed using esthetic indices (PES = Pink Esthetic Score, PI = Papilla Index, SES = Subjective Esthetic Score) as well as subjective patients' Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) ratings. Clinical and radiological parameters (implant and crown dimensions, pocket depth, bleeding on probing, plaque, keratinized mucosa, marginal bone level, and distance to adjacent teeth) were tested for influence. RESULTS: Implant esthetics were judged satisfactory (PES ≤10) in 42% of implants compared with a patient satisfaction rate of 87%. Correlation between objective indices (PES/PI: rs = 0.62, PES/SES: rs = -0.73, PI/SES: rs = -0.48) was highly significant (P ≤ 0.001); however, no association to subjective patients' ratings could be observed. Type of prosthetic restoration (single crown vs. tulip-shaped double crowns), mesio-distal crown width as well as anatomic crown length significantly affected esthetic scores. Patients' judgment, by contrast, could not be associated to any prognostic factor. CONCLUSION: Subjective patient satisfaction with implant esthetics in the partially edentulous anterior mandible is high, however, remains hard to predict or objectively quantify.