Article

Outcome evaluation of early placed maxillary anterior single-tooth implants using objective esthetic criteria: a cross-sectional, retrospective study in 45 patients with a 2- to 4-year follow-up using pink and white esthetic scores.

Department of Fixed Prosthodontics and Occlusion, School of Dental Medicine, University of Geneva, Geneva, Switzerland.
Journal of Periodontology (Impact Factor: 2.57). 02/2009; 80(1):140-51. DOI: 10.1902/jop.2009.080435
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT To validate the concept of early implant placement for use in the esthetically sensitive anterior maxilla, clinical trials should ideally include objective esthetic criteria when assessing outcome parameters.
In this cross-sectional, retrospective 2- to 4-year study involving 45 patients treated with maxillary anterior single-tooth implants according to the concept of early implant placement, a novel comprehensive index, comprising pink esthetic score and white esthetic score (PES/WES; the highest possible combined score is 20), was applied for the objective esthetic outcome assessment of anterior single-tooth implants.
All 45 anterior maxillary single-tooth implants fulfilled strict success criteria for dental implants with regard to osseointegration, including the absence of peri-implant radiolucency, implant mobility, suppuration, and pain. The mean total PES/WES was 14.7 +/- 1.18 (range: 11 to 18). The mean total PES of 7.8 +/- 0.88 (range: 6 to 9) documents favorable overall peri-implant soft tissue conditions. The two PES variables facial mucosa curvature (1.9 +/- 0.29) and facial mucosa level (1.8 +/- 0.42) had the highest mean values, whereas the combination variable root convexity/soft tissue color and texture (1.2 +/- 0.53) proved to be the most difficult to fully satisfy. Mean scores were 1.6 +/- 0.5 for the mesial papilla and 1.3 +/- 0.5 for the distal papilla. A mean value of 6.9 +/- 1.47 (range: 4 to 10) was calculated for WES.
This study demonstrated that anterior maxillary single-tooth replacement, according to the concept of early implant placement, is a successful and predictable treatment modality, in general, and from an esthetic point of view, in particular. The suitability of the PES/WES index for the objective outcome assessment of the esthetic dimension of anterior single-tooth implants was confirmed. However, prospective clinical trials are needed to further validate and refine this index.

Download full-text

Full-text

Available from: Daniel Buser, Jun 28, 2015
2 Followers
 · 
365 Views
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Abstract Purpose: To evaluate the long-term aesthetic outcome of the single crowns supported by softtissue level implants placed in healed sites in the anterior maxilla region via the pink aesthetic score (PES) and the white aesthetic score (WES). Material and methods: According to the inclusion criteria, patients who had received a single Straumann� Standard Plus implant in the anterior maxilla at the Shanghai 9th People’s Hospital between 2005 and 2008 were invited for a re-examination based on a number of inclusion criteria and exclusion criteria. Clinical, radiographic and aesthetic outcomes (PES/WES) were assessed during their revisit at 5–8 years after crown placement. Results: Forty-five patients were enrolled in the study. All 45 implants were successfully integrated and most of the implants did not show signs of peri-implant disease at the time of the assessment. The marginal bone resorption was 1.10 � 0.92 mm. The mean total PES was 8.48 � 2.62 at the baseline, 9.57 � 2.37 at the 6–10 months revisit and 9.01 � 2.45 at the 5–8 years follow-up. The scores of the mesial and distal papillae increased significantly between the baseline and 6– 10 months follow-up, this improvement remained stable at the 5–8 years follow-up. The scores of soft tissue level, colour of the soft tissue, soft tissue texture and the alveolar process decreased significantly between the 6–10 months and 5-8 years revisits. The mean WES was 7.83 � 1.60 at the baseline and 7.72 � 1.43 at the 5–8 years revisit. There was no significant difference of the WES between the baseline and 5–8 years revisit. Conclusion: The possibility of spontaneous papillae regeneration after implant treatment and the long-term stability of the regenerated papillae were confirmed. However, recession of the facial soft tissue has been found. The incidence of the recession at thin biotype sites tended to be higher.
    Clinical Oral Implants Research 12/2014; DOI:10.1111/clr.12540 · 3.12 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Objective The aim of this prospective study was to assess the esthetic outcome and alterations of peri-implant soft tissue using tissue-level implants. Furthermore, the influencing factors, including grafting and gingival biotype, of esthetic outcome of peri-implant soft tissue were also evaluated.Materials and methodsOf 38 patients with single missing anterior tooth in maxilla were treated with a Straumann ® Standard Plus SLA implant. Bone augmentation was performed in 24 patients. Follow-up was conducted at 12 and 24 months after definitive crowns placement. Esthetic outcome using the pink esthetic score/white esthetic score (PES/WES) and clinical parameters were evaluated.ResultsThe mean PES/WES value at baseline, 1-year, and 2-year examination was 13.79, 14.87, and 14.96. Significant improvement was found between baseline and 1-year examination (P < 0.01). And the improvement between 1-year and 2-year examination was not significant (P = 0.40). The mean PES changing value in patients with thick biotype was significantly higher than those with thin biotype at 2-year after definitive crowns placement (P = 0.03). Graft procedure had an unfavorable effect on mean PES value both at baseline and at follow-up (P < 0.01). No implants were lost at 2-year examination. Three patients experienced peri-implant infection. No significant difference was found with the passage of time in modified plaque index (mPI), probing pocket depth (PPD), and modified bleeding index (mBI).Conclusion According to the present prospective clinical study, it can be concluded that it is feasible to use tissue-level implant to support single crowns in esthetic area. Favorable short-term esthetic outcome and stability of soft tissue around single implant crowns can be expected in patients with or without graft. However, graft procedures might have an unfavorable effect on the esthetic outcome. Gingival biotype can be considered as prognostic factor for esthetic outcome. RCTs with long-term follow-up are needed to provide evidence for the long-term stability of peri-implant soft tissue using tissue-level implant systems.
    Clinical Oral Implants Research 04/2014; DOI:10.1111/clr.12408 · 3.12 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Dimensional alterations of the facial bone wall following tooth extractions in the esthetic zone have a profound effect on treatment outcomes. This prospective study in 39 patients is the first to investigate three-dimensional (3D) alterations of facial bone in the esthetic zone during the initial 8 wks following flapless tooth extraction. A novel 3D analysis was carried out, based on 2 consecutive cone beam computed tomographies (CBCTs). A risk zone for significant bone resorption was identified in central areas, whereas proximal areas yielded only minor changes. Correlation analysis identified a facial bone wall thickness of ≤ 1 mm as a critical factor associated with the extent of bone resorption. Thin-wall phenotypes displayed pronounced vertical bone resorption, with a median bone loss of 7.5 mm, as compared with thick-wall phenotypes, which decreased by only 1.1 mm. For the first time, 3D analysis has allowed for documentation of dimensional alterations of the facial bone wall in the esthetic zone of humans following extraction. It also characterized a risk zone prone to pronounced bone resorption in thin-wall phenotypes. Vertical bone loss was 3.5 times more severe than findings reported in the existing literature.
    Journal of dental research 10/2013; DOI:10.1177/0022034513506713 · 4.14 Impact Factor