Sandro Tettamanti1, Christopher Millen2, Jelena Gavric3, Daniel Buser4, Urs C Belser1, Urs Brägger1, Julia-Gabriela Wittneben1,5. 1. Department of Reconstructive Dentistry and Gerodontology, School of Dental Medicine, University of Bern, Bern, Switzerland. 2. Department of Restorative Dentistry, Edinburgh Dental Institute, Edinburgh, Scotland. 3. Department of Fixed Prosthodontics and Occlusion, School of Dental Medicine, University of Geneva, Geneva, Switzerland. 4. Department of Oral Surgery and Stomatology, School of Dental Medicine, University of Bern, Bern, Switzerland. 5. Department of Restorative Dentistry and Biomaterials Sciences, Harvard School of Dental Medicine, Boston, MA, USA.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: A successful implant reconstruction with optimal esthetics consists of a visually pleasing prosthesis and complete and healthy surrounding soft tissue. In the current literature, numerous indices used to qualitatively assess esthetics have been described. However, studies comparing the indices and their reproducibility are scarce. PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to compare three different esthetic indices for the evaluation of single implant-supported crowns. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A total of 10 prosthodontists (P), 10 orthodontists (O), 10 general dentists (G), and 10 lay people (L) independently performed the same assessment using 30 photographs and corresponding casts with three different esthetic indices (Peri-Implant and Crown Index [PICI], Implant Crown Aesthetic Index [ICAI], "Pink Esthetic Score/White Esthetic Score [PES/WES]) and repeated the evaluations 4 weeks later. RESULTS: The PES/WES and the PICI showed significantly higher esthetic scores (pink, white, total) and clinical acceptance compared with the ICAI in all four groups and in both assessments. The highest intraobserver agreement was achieved using the PES/WES and the least with the ICAI. The mean Kappa per group ranged from 0.18 (group L with ICAI) to 0.63 (group G with PICI). CONCLUSION: In comparison with the ICAI, the PES/WES and PICI were more reproducible. Therefore, PES/WES and PICI seem to be more suitable as esthetic indices for single implant crowns.
BACKGROUND: A successful implant reconstruction with optimal esthetics consists of a visually pleasing prosthesis and complete and healthy surrounding soft tissue. In the current literature, numerous indices used to qualitatively assess esthetics have been described. However, studies comparing the indices and their reproducibility are scarce. PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to compare three different esthetic indices for the evaluation of single implant-supported crowns. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A total of 10 prosthodontists (P), 10 orthodontists (O), 10 general dentists (G), and 10 lay people (L) independently performed the same assessment using 30 photographs and corresponding casts with three different esthetic indices (Peri-Implant and Crown Index [PICI], Implant Crown Aesthetic Index [ICAI], "Pink Esthetic Score/White Esthetic Score [PES/WES]) and repeated the evaluations 4 weeks later. RESULTS: The PES/WES and the PICI showed significantly higher esthetic scores (pink, white, total) and clinical acceptance compared with the ICAI in all four groups and in both assessments. The highest intraobserver agreement was achieved using the PES/WES and the least with the ICAI. The mean Kappa per group ranged from 0.18 (group L with ICAI) to 0.63 (group G with PICI). CONCLUSION: In comparison with the ICAI, the PES/WES and PICI were more reproducible. Therefore, PES/WES and PICI seem to be more suitable as esthetic indices for single implant crowns.