Kelvin I Afrashtehfar1,2,3,4,5,6, Mansour K A Assery7,8, S Ross Bryant9,10. 1. Division of Restorative Dental Sciences, Department of Clinical Sciences, College of Dentistry, Ajman University, 346 Ajman, UAE. 2. Department of Reconstructive Dentistry and Gerodontology, School of Dental Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, University of Bern, 3010 Berne CH, Switzerland. 3. Vicerrectorado de Investigación-EIDUCAM, Universidad Católica San Antonio de Murcia (UCAM), 30107 Murcia, Spain. 4. Department of Oral Surgery and Stomatology, School of Dental Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, University of Bern, 3010 Berne CH, Switzerland. 5. Department of Restorative Dentistry, Edinburgh Dental Institute, College of Medicine and Veterinary, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh EH3 9HA, UK. 6. Centre of Medical and Bio-allied Health Sciences Research (CMBHSR), Ajman University, Dubai, UAE. 7. Department of Prosthodontics, College of Dentistry, Riyadh Elm University, Riyadh 12611, Saudi Arabia. 8. Postgraduate Studies and Scientific Research, Riyadh Elm University, Riyadh 12611, Saudi Arabia. 9. Department of Oral Health Sciences, Faculty of Dentistry, University of British Columbia, Vancouver BC V6T 1Z3, Canada. 10. Division of Prosthodontics and Dental Geriatrics, Faculty of Dentistry, University of British Columbia, Vancouver BC V6T 1Z3, Canada.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: This review aimed to concisely describe the current aesthetic objective indices for a single-implant maxillary anterior crown. The secondary aim was to propose introducing a unified, standardized questionnaire for adequately collecting patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) in implant dentistry. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A literature review was conducted using both EMBASE/Ovid and MEDLINE/PubMed databases by combining keywords and Emtree/Mesh terms related to "Esthetics," "Self-Assessment or Surveys and Questionnaires," and "Single-Tooth Dental Implants." RESULTS: The most meaningful aesthetic objective indices for single implants in the literature are the Pink Esthetic Score (PES), the Papilla Presence Index (PPI), Peri-Implant and Crown Index (PICI), PES/White Esthetic Score (PES/WES), the Implant Crown Aesthetic Index (ICAI), and a modified version of the ICAI (mod-ICAI) index. Clearly, PES/WES is still the most widely accepted tool. It is encouraging to observe that there is an increasing tendency in recent years to report PROMs more frequently in the implant dentistry literature. We proposed the implementation of a unified, standardized questionnaire using a self-administered visual analogue scale (VAS) scoring system, which evaluates overall satisfaction, comfort, tooth appearance, gingival appearance, function, and hygiene complexity. This tool should be validated in the oral implantology research context for its regular implementation or further development. CONCLUSIONS: Conducting qualitative studies among dental implant patients who received few implants or single-tooth implant reconstructions in the aesthetic zone may help dental researchers understand better how to efficiently develop and validate a quantitative instrument. This standard tool would reduce heterogeneity bias by providing comparable data between studies.
BACKGROUND: This review aimed to concisely describe the current aesthetic objective indices for a single-implant maxillary anterior crown. The secondary aim was to propose introducing a unified, standardized questionnaire for adequately collecting patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) in implant dentistry. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A literature review was conducted using both EMBASE/Ovid and MEDLINE/PubMed databases by combining keywords and Emtree/Mesh terms related to "Esthetics," "Self-Assessment or Surveys and Questionnaires," and "Single-Tooth Dental Implants." RESULTS: The most meaningful aesthetic objective indices for single implants in the literature are the Pink Esthetic Score (PES), the Papilla Presence Index (PPI), Peri-Implant and Crown Index (PICI), PES/White Esthetic Score (PES/WES), the Implant Crown Aesthetic Index (ICAI), and a modified version of the ICAI (mod-ICAI) index. Clearly, PES/WES is still the most widely accepted tool. It is encouraging to observe that there is an increasing tendency in recent years to report PROMs more frequently in the implant dentistry literature. We proposed the implementation of a unified, standardized questionnaire using a self-administered visual analogue scale (VAS) scoring system, which evaluates overall satisfaction, comfort, tooth appearance, gingival appearance, function, and hygiene complexity. This tool should be validated in the oral implantology research context for its regular implementation or further development. CONCLUSIONS: Conducting qualitative studies among dental implant patients who received few implants or single-tooth implant reconstructions in the aesthetic zone may help dental researchers understand better how to efficiently develop and validate a quantitative instrument. This standard tool would reduce heterogeneity bias by providing comparable data between studies.
Authors: Azza Husam Al-Ani; Joseph Safwat Antoun; William Murray Thomson; Tony Raymond Merriman; Mauro Farella Journal: Biomed Res Int Date: 2017-03-19 Impact factor: 3.411
Authors: Ali Mahmoud Hashemi; Hamid Mahmoud Hashemi; Hakimeh Siadat; Ahmadreza Shamshiri; Kelvin Ian Afrashtehfar; Marzieh Alikhasi Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2022-09-12 Impact factor: 4.614