Literature DB >> 28000279

Esthetic assessments in implant dentistry: objective and subjective criteria for clinicians and patients.

Jan Cosyn, Daniel S Thoma, Christoph H F Hämmerle, Hugo De Bruyn.   

Abstract

In recent years the scientific community has shown a clear interest in the esthetic outcome of implant treatment. The present paper provides an overview of the esthetic ratings that have been used in implant dentistry. A distinction can be made between objective evaluations by clinicians and subjective evaluations by patients. The former mainly include: midfacial and interproximal soft-tissue levels; two-dimensional/three-dimensional soft-tissue alterations; assessment of the color match between the natural dentition, on the one hand, and the peri-implant tissues and the reconstruction, on the other hand; and ordinal indices, such as the pink and white esthetic score. Patient's needs and judgment may differ from objective indicators of implant success and esthetics. As a result, assessing treatment on the basis of patient-reported outcomes measures should be considered important. Validated questionnaires have been used that mainly assess the impact of oral health on the overall well-being of individuals. The esthetic judgment of patients is usually based on nonstandardized questions with varying scoring methods, including visual analog scales, Likert and other category scales and open questions. The heterogeneity in scoring systems between studies may compromise proper comparison of objective and subjective esthetic outcomes between studies and therapeutic concepts.
© 2016 John Wiley & Sons A/S. Published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2017        PMID: 28000279     DOI: 10.1111/prd.12163

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Periodontol 2000        ISSN: 0906-6713            Impact factor:   7.589


  7 in total

Review 1.  Etiology and Treatment of Peri-Implant Soft Tissue Dehiscences: A Narrative Review.

Authors:  Charalampos Kaddas; Eirini Papamanoli; Yiorgos A Bobetsis
Journal:  Dent J (Basel)       Date:  2022-05-16

2.  Comparison of general and aesthetic effects between flapless and flap techniques in dental implantation: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.

Authors:  Xiaomeng Gao; Siyu Qin; He Cai; Qianbing Wan
Journal:  Int J Implant Dent       Date:  2021-10-01

3.  Interproximal contact loss at implant sites: a retrospective clinical study with a 10-year follow-up.

Authors:  Thomas J W Gasser; Spyridon N Papageorgiou; Theodore Eliades; Christoph H F Hämmerle; Daniel S Thoma
Journal:  Clin Oral Implants Res       Date:  2022-03-01       Impact factor: 5.021

4.  Preoperative buccal bone volume predicts long-term graft retention following augmentation in the esthetic zone: A retrospective case series.

Authors:  Balazs Feher; Florian Frommlet; Christian Ulm; Reinhard Gruber; Ulrike Kuchler
Journal:  Clin Oral Implants Res       Date:  2022-03-02       Impact factor: 5.021

Review 5.  The influence of thin as compared to thick peri-implant soft tissues on aesthetic outcomes: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

Authors:  Stefan P Bienz; Miha Pirc; Spyridon N Papageorgiou; Ronald E Jung; Daniel S Thoma
Journal:  Clin Oral Implants Res       Date:  2022-06       Impact factor: 5.021

Review 6.  Prosthodontic Principles in Dental Implantology: Adjustments in a Coronavirus Disease-19 Pandemic-Battered Economy.

Authors:  Ricardo A Boyce
Journal:  Dent Clin North Am       Date:  2020-11-06

7.  A histomorphometric study on treated and untreated ceramic filled PEEK implants versus titanium implants: Preclinical in vivo study.

Authors:  Tarek A El Awadly; Gang Wu; Mohamed Ayad; Iman A W Radi; Daniel Wismeijer; Hamdy Abo El Fetouh; Reham B Osman
Journal:  Clin Oral Implants Res       Date:  2019-12-19       Impact factor: 5.977

  7 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.