| Literature DB >> 35329376 |
Sarit Naishlos1, Vadim Reiser2, Helena Zelikman3, Joseph Nissan3, Daya Masri2, Hiba Nassra3, Gavriel Chaushu2, Sigalit Blumer1, Liat Chaushu4.
Abstract
Purpose: Evaluate the esthetic outcome of ridge augmentation using cancellous bone-block allografts, late implant placement, and immediate loading in the atrophic anterior maxilla, by PES (pink esthetic score) and WES (white esthetic score) indexes. Materials andEntities:
Keywords: PES/WES; allograft; bone-block; immediate loading
Mesh:
Year: 2022 PMID: 35329376 PMCID: PMC8949589 DOI: 10.3390/ijerph19063689
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health ISSN: 1660-4601 Impact factor: 3.390
Figure 1Deficient alveolar ridge.
Figure 2Cancellous bone-block fixation.
Figure 3Block grafts incorporated into the surrounding bone.
Figure 4Restoration interocclusal relation.
Detailed PES and WES values of all patients.
|
|
| |||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Patient | Implant
| Total
| Total
| Trans-Lucency | Texture | Color | Outline | Tooth Form | Total
| Root
| Level of Facial
| Curvature
| Distal Papilla | Mesial Papilla |
| 1 | 11 | 12 | 6 | 1 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 6 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 1 |
| 2 | 12 | 12 | 7 | 1 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 5 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 |
| 3 | 12 | 15 | 10 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 5 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 |
| 4 | 22 | 19 | 10 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 9 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 1 |
| 5 | 11 | 19 | 10 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 9 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 1 |
| 6 | 22 | 19 | 10 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 9 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 1 |
| 7 | 21 | 19 | 10 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 9 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 1 |
| 8 | 21 | 15 | 10 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 5 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 |
| 9 | 22 | 13 | 5 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 8 | 1 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 1 |
| 10 | 21 | 14 | 7 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 2 | 7 | 1 | 2 | 2 | 1 | 1 |
| 11 | 12 | 15 | 10 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 5 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 |
| 12 | 22 | 15 | 10 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 5 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 |
| 13 | 21 | 17 | 10 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 7 | 0 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 1 |
| 14 | 22 | 12 | 5 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 7 | 0 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 1 |
| 15 | 21 | 13 | 5 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 8 | 1 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 1 |
| 16 | 22 | 13 | 5 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 8 | 1 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 1 |
| 17 | 21 | 18 | 10 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 8 | 1 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 1 |
| 18 | 11 | 20 | 10 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 10 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 |
| 19 | 21 | 20 | 10 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 10 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 |
| 20 | 12 | 15 | 10 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 5 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 |
| 21 | 11 | 17 | 10 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 7 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 2 | 1 |
| 22 | 12 | 15 | 10 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 5 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 |
| 23 | 12 | 12 | 7 | 1 | 2 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 5 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 |
| 24 | 22 | 12 | 6 | 1 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 6 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 2 |
| 25 | 23 | 12 | 6 | 1 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 6 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 1 | 1 |
| Average | 15.3 | 8.4 | 1.6 | 1.8 | 1.6 | 1.6 | 1.7 | 7 | 1.2 | 1.5 | 1.6 | 1.6 | 1.1 | |
| SD | 2.85 | 2.12 | 0.50 | 0.41 | 0.49 | 0.49 | 0.48 | 1.74 | 0.55 | 0.51 | 0.50 | 0.51 | 0.33 | |
Figure 5Mean PES value of each parameter.
Figure 6Mean WES value of each parameter.
Figure 7Mean total PES and WES value.
Figure 8Tooth 22 was reconstructed. PES + WES score was16.