Markus Hof1,2, Nabeel Umar3, Nikolaus Budas2, Rudolf Seemann4, Bernhard Pommer5, Werner Zechner1. 1. Division of Oral Surgery, Dental University Clinic Vienna, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria. 2. Division of Dental Student Training and Patient Care, Dental University Clinic Vienna, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria. 3. Private Practice, Vienna, Austria. 4. University Clinic of Maxillofacial Surgery Vienna, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria. 5. Academy for Oral Implantology, Vienna, Austria.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: The aim of the present study was to give a detailed analysis on eight proposed implant esthetic indices including a total of 48 parameters with respect to validity and reproducibility as well as its correlation to patients' perception of esthetics. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Standardized intraoral photographs of 189 patients with 189 implant-supported crowns and adjacent peri-implant soft tissue in the esthetic zone (central and lateral incisors, canine, first premolar) served as basis for this evaluation. Eight indices (Papilla Index [PI], Pink Esthetic Score [PES], Implant Crown Aesthetic Index [ICAI], Pink and White Esthetic Score [PES/WES], Complex Esthetic Index [CEI], Implant Aesthetic Score [IAS], Subjective Esthetic Score [SES], and Rompen Index) with a total of 48 parameters were selected. Esthetic evaluation was performed twice by five examiners with an interval of 4 weeks between the evaluations. RESULTS: A total of 1,890 evaluations including eight esthetic indices served as basis for the statistical analysis. Among the overall main scores tested for inter-rater reliability, the highest ρ^inter values were computed for CEI, PES, PI, and IAS scores. By contrast, SES and Rompen showed the worst inter-rater reliability, respectively. The highest level of intra-rater reproducibility was noted for PI, PES, and CEI. The lowest level of intra-rater reproducibility showed Rompen, SES, and ICA. The Papilla Index demonstrated the highest level of inter-rater reliability. The remainder of the single variables (n = 46) did not reach the ρ^inter level of 0.6. The single variables PI mesial, PI distal as well as CEI P4 showed the highest ρ^intra with statistical significance higher than 0.8. The lowest agreement was observed among the variables ICA3, WES5, and IASm2. In general, VAS did not show any good correlation to the esthetic indices proposed so far. The influence of esthetic parameters on subjective patient satisfaction was generally low. CONCLUSION: In conclusion, significant differences regarding reliability and validity could be observed in the present comparison of eight esthetic indices. Objective evaluation of the esthetic outcome of implant therapy inherently fails to reflect subjective patient opinion, however, requires consistency of results to enable between-study comparison and meta-analysis.
OBJECTIVES: The aim of the present study was to give a detailed analysis on eight proposed implant esthetic indices including a total of 48 parameters with respect to validity and reproducibility as well as its correlation to patients' perception of esthetics. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Standardized intraoral photographs of 189 patients with 189 implant-supported crowns and adjacent peri-implant soft tissue in the esthetic zone (central and lateral incisors, canine, first premolar) served as basis for this evaluation. Eight indices (Papilla Index [PI], Pink Esthetic Score [PES], Implant Crown Aesthetic Index [ICAI], Pink and White Esthetic Score [PES/WES], Complex Esthetic Index [CEI], Implant Aesthetic Score [IAS], Subjective Esthetic Score [SES], and Rompen Index) with a total of 48 parameters were selected. Esthetic evaluation was performed twice by five examiners with an interval of 4 weeks between the evaluations. RESULTS: A total of 1,890 evaluations including eight esthetic indices served as basis for the statistical analysis. Among the overall main scores tested for inter-rater reliability, the highest ρ^inter values were computed for CEI, PES, PI, and IAS scores. By contrast, SES and Rompen showed the worst inter-rater reliability, respectively. The highest level of intra-rater reproducibility was noted for PI, PES, and CEI. The lowest level of intra-rater reproducibility showed Rompen, SES, and ICA. The Papilla Index demonstrated the highest level of inter-rater reliability. The remainder of the single variables (n = 46) did not reach the ρ^inter level of 0.6. The single variables PI mesial, PI distal as well as CEI P4 showed the highest ρ^intra with statistical significance higher than 0.8. The lowest agreement was observed among the variables ICA3, WES5, and IASm2. In general, VAS did not show any good correlation to the esthetic indices proposed so far. The influence of esthetic parameters on subjective patient satisfaction was generally low. CONCLUSION: In conclusion, significant differences regarding reliability and validity could be observed in the present comparison of eight esthetic indices. Objective evaluation of the esthetic outcome of implant therapy inherently fails to reflect subjective patient opinion, however, requires consistency of results to enable between-study comparison and meta-analysis.
Authors: Russell A Baer; Robert Nölken; Snjezana Colic; Guido Heydecke; Christine Mirzakhanian; Alexandra Behneke; Nikolaus Behneke; Edward Gottesman; Liliana Ottria; Alessandro Pozzi; Alexander Fügl; Werner Zechner Journal: Clin Oral Investig Date: 2022-01-08 Impact factor: 3.573
Authors: Davide Farronato; Pietro Mario Pasini; Andrea Alain Orsina; Mattia Manfredini; Lorenzo Azzi; Marco Farronato Journal: Materials (Basel) Date: 2020-01-21 Impact factor: 3.623