Esthetic evaluation of single implant restorations, adjacent single implant restorations, and implant‐supported fixed partial dentures: A 1‐year prospective study

Abstract

Background Peri‐implant soft tissues esthetics varies and depends on the restoration type such as implant‐supported single crowns, adjacent multiple single crowns, and fixed partial dentures (FPD). Purpose The aim of this prospective study was to assess the esthetic outcome of the peri‐implant soft tissues of (NobelBiocare™) implant‐supported single crowns, adjacent multiple single crowns, and FPD. A potential association between the esthetic risk profile and the esthetic outcome was assessed. Materials and methods Between 03/11 and 03/17, 300 NobelActive implants were installed in 153 partially edentulous patients. Prior to the fabrication of the final restoration, the esthetic risk profile (ERP) of the patient was determined. The pink esthetic score (PES) and white esthetic score (WES) were assessed by three investigators at 6 and 12 months post‐insertion of the final restoration. Patients' appreciation was assessed on a visual analogue scale (VAS) at the 1‐year follow‐up. Results The clinical acceptable limit for PES (≥6) was achieved in 56% to 68% of the single crowns at 6 and 12 months, respectively. Clinically unacceptable PES scores were recorded for 48% of the adjacent multiple single crowns and 63% of the FPDs at both time points. The association of a high ERP with WES and PESWES was noticed for single implant‐supported crowns. For the latter restoration type, a ≤5 mm distance between the crestal bone level and the proximal contact positively influenced the PES and combined PESWES scores. No correlation was found between PES or WES and patient satisfaction. Mesial papilla formation was more pronounced compared to the distal one for the single implant crowns and for implant‐supported FPD. Conclusion When high esthetic demands are expected, assessment of ERP prior to implant treatment is advised in order to estimate a realistic outcome.

Knowledge, awareness, and perception of dental students, interns, and freshly graduated dentists regarding dental implant complications in Saudi Arabia: a web-based anonymous survey

“…In our study, participants responded similarly that loss of the interdental papilla, gingival recession, exposure of the implant margin and a poor emergence profile are the most common aesthetic complications associated with dental implants. Recent studies in the literature have reported aesthetic complications, revealing that between 4 and 16% of single implant crowns in the anterior maxilla fail for aesthetic reasons [48][49][50]. The most common aesthetic complication is gingival recession exposing the implant/abutment junction, with one study reporting up to 61% of cases with at least 1 mm of gingival recession on the facial aspect.…”

The peri‐implant mucosa color: A systematic appraisal of methods for its assessment and clinical significance

“…Full‐text assessment was performed for 327 articles. Based on the predetermined inclusion criteria, 121 articles were included 14–20,22,23,30–141 . The reason for exclusion of the other 196 articles is available in the Appendix (Table S1).…”

“…The pink esthetic score (PES) 16 was utilized in 58 studies (62.4% of the studies assessing PMC with an index), 16,17,33–35,46,49–54,56–66,69–71,74,76,79,81,83,84,94,96–100,105,107–112,114–116,118–122,124,127,128,133,134 while the combined pink and white esthetic score (PES/WES) 142 was employed in 26 articles (28.0%) 17,31,37,38,41–45,47,55,72,73,80,90–92,102,103,106,117,135,136,139–141 . Other esthetic indices utilized include the Copenhagen index score (CIS), 85–88 the implant crown esthetic index (ICAI), 17,75 the complex esthetic index (CEI), 17,32,95 the implant esthetic score (IAS), 17 the implant restoration esthetic index (IREI), 100 the mucosal scarring index (MSI) 54,143 and the implant soft tissue dehiscence coverage esthetic score (IDES) 18 .…”

“…35,46,51,53,54,[56][57][58][59][60][61][62][63][64][65][66]74,81,105,116,[119][120][121][122]124,127,128,133,134 Similarly, 10 studies reporting PMC as a parameter of the PES/WES, provided information on color discrepancy with contralateral reference tooth only, without additional comparisons. 17,31,37,38,41,43,47,55,90,117 PMC as a part of the PES/WES assessment was utilized to evaluate color changes over time in 7 studies 42,45,80,102,103,106,139 and to compare color differences among different groups in 9 studies. 44,72,73,91,92,136,140,…”

Risk factors associated with loss of variable‐thread tapered implants: A retrospective observational study of 1–5 years

“…This implant system is designed with a tapered body and variable threads (deeper at the apical area) to increase self‐drilling ability and primary stability through condensing peri‐implant bone tissue during the insertion. Most studies exhibited the acceptable outcome of this implant system based on short‐term follow‐up (Babbush et al, 2013; Boon et al, 2020), and the implant survival rates could reach over 95% (Blume et al, 2020; Kielbassa et al, 2009; Kolinski et al, 2014). However, the sample size was relatively small in these studies (66–199 implants) and some literature revealed that the efficacy of the VTTI system after functional loading was not clear (Blume et al, 2020; Cristalli et al, 2015).…”