Professional and patient-reported outcomes of two surgical approaches for implant-supported single-crown restoration: 1-year results of a randomized controlled clinical trial

OBJECTIVES

To test whether there is a difference in professional and patient-reported outcome measures (PROM) after single-crown restoration supported by short implants (SI) (6 mm) compared with standard length implants (SLI) (13 mm) in conjunction with maxillary sinus floor augmentation (MSFA) after 1 year of functional implant loading.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

Forty patients were randomly allocated to SI or SLI/MSFA. PROM included Oral Health Impact Profile (OHIP-14) questionnaire and subjective assessment of the peri-implant soft tissue (A), implant crown (B), implant function (C) and overall implant treatment outcome (D) using visual analogue scale (VAS). Professional assessment included pink aesthetic score (PES) and white aesthetic score (WES).

RESULTS

No significant differences in professional or PROM between the two treatment modalities were revealed at any time point (p > .05). OHIP-14 score decreased at baseline and 1 year after functional implant loading compared with preoperative measurements indicating improved quality of life with both treatment modalities. The 1-year mean VAS score was 9.4 (A), 9.3 (B), 9.6 (C) and 9.3 (D) for SI compared with 9.3 (A), 9.6 (B), 9.7 (C) and 9.2 (D) for SLI. The 1-year mean PES/WES scores were 11.3 and 8.1 for SI compared with 11.2 and 8.1 for SLI/MSFA.

CONCLUSIONS

Prosthetic rehabilitation of the posterior part of the maxilla with SI or SLI/MSFA revealed no significant differences in professional and PROM after 1 year of implant loading.

Reproducibility and validity of anterior implant esthetic indices: A review

Background:

The purpose of this review was to narrate about the reproducibility and validity of different indices evaluating esthetic aspects in anterior single implant-supported restorations.

Materials and Methods:

An electronic search of Medline, Scopus, Embase, Cochrane Central, and Web of Science databases was performed using the keywords “dental implants,” “anterior esthetics,” “esthetic score,” and “esthetic index.” Besides, a manual search of dental implant journals was carried out.

Results:

The electronic search revealed 932 titles. After further review, 14 articles fulfilled the eligibility criteria and were included in this review. Because of the heterogeneity of the study designs, interventions, and parameters used for assessment of esthetics, no meta-analysis could be performed.

Conclusion:

Many indices have been proposed for the evaluation of the esthetic aspects of single implant-supported reconstructions in the anterior maxilla. All of them have some advantages and drawbacks that this review pointed out. The evidence level of studies used for the validation of these indices is poor. It is necessary to achieve a consensus on the tools for assessment of the esthetic aspect and perform evidence-based studies to validate an appropriate index.

Emergence profile customization technique during implant transfer

This case report aimed to describe the clinical considerations in oral rehabilitation with prostheses on implants in the anterior region, using emergence profile customization technique during implant transfer. A patient presented with a missing left upper central incisor and with not satisfactory esthetic in the other upper incisors. After diagnosis, a treatment plan was elaborated: implant placement in this region; ceramic laminates for teeth 11 and 22, and full crown for tooth 12. During the impression procedure, the implant transfer was customized by copying the gingival profile. The prostheses were made using IPS e.max ceramic system and luted with resin cement. The patient was submitted to annual follow-up examinations that did not show any irregularity or deficiency in the prostheses. The technique performed is a viable alternative that can be used in oral rehabilitation with implants involving anterior teeth because it allows a predictable level of adaptation.

The dome technique: a new surgical technique to enhance soft-tissue margins and emergence profiles around implants placed in the esthetic zone

Achieving symmetry of the soft-tissue margins between anterior maxillary dental-implant restorations and adjacent teeth is a therapeutic challenge for both the implant surgeon and the restorative dentist. This article describes a modified procedure utilizing autogenous connective-tissue grafts to improve primarily buccal soft-tissue margins and secondarily inter-proximal tissues around tooth-bound single dental implants. This technique has the advantage of allowing for coronal augmentation of the peri-implant soft tissue while maximizing the blood supply to the area by using tunneling-technique principles. A detailed description of the technique and a case with a stable result over 24 months after crown placement is presented.

Clinician assessments and patient perspectives of single-tooth implant restorations in the esthetic zone of the maxilla: A systematic review

STATEMENT OF PROBLEM

Esthetic outcomes associated with implant dentistry are important to both clinicians and patients. However, esthetic satisfaction may vary between the 2 groups. In order to evaluate the current publications relating to this topic, the following focused question was developed, "what are the quantitative and qualitative differences between clinician evaluations and patient perspectives in the assessment of single-tooth implant outcomes in the esthetic zone?"

PURPOSE

The purpose of this systematic review was to identify differences in esthetic satisfaction between clinicians and patients when evaluating single-tooth implant-supported restorations.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

An electronic search of the Medline database and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (2000 to 2014) was performed. The search was supplemented by a manual search of specific journals. A quality assessment of full-text articles was performed according to Cochrane Collaboration's tool and Newcastle-Ottawa scale for risk of bias assessment. Information regarding outcomes was collected and compared.

RESULTS

The search term combinations identified 555 titles. Subsequent to further review, 11 publications, including 2 randomized controlled trials, were selected for inclusion. Because of the heterogeneity of the study designs, study interventions, and esthetic assessment methods, no meta-analysis was performed. The clinicians identified a satisfactory outcome in 51% to 100% for peri-implant soft tissue and 62% to 90% for implant restorations. Patients showed a mean range score of 43% to 93% for peri-implant soft tissue and 81% to 96% for implant restorations. The visual analog scale score of the dentists was always lower than that of the patients. The review identified correlations between subjective and objective assessments for the Pink Esthetic Score (PES), the Papilla Index (PI), the Implant Crown Aesthetic Index (ICAI), and the modified (mod-ICAI) indices.

CONCLUSIONS

Clinicians are more critical of esthetic outcomes than patients. The PES and the PI correlated with the patients' responses concerning the peri-implant soft tissue. The ICAI and the mod-ICAI showed a correlation of both the peri-implant mucosa and implant-supported crown satisfaction. Thus, a comprehensive and practical index should be developed to assess the esthetic outcomes for single-tooth implant restorations in the esthetic zone.

Color Analysis of Periimplant Soft Tissues Focusing on Implant System: A Case Series

PURPOSE

To assess the impact of implant system on color harmonization of periimplant mucosa.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

In this case series, color of periimplant mucosa was compared with color of natural tooth gingiva. Seventeen intercanine implants were analyzed (11 bone level [BL], 6 tissue level [TL] implants). Colorimetric data, at 2, 4, and 6 mm from gingival margin, were collected through fiber optics reflectance spectroscopy, and color differences calculated as ΔE. Dentists, dental students, and lay people, in blind, performed an additional visual color analysis on clinical images.

RESULTS

Independently from implant system, the color of periimplant mucosa was significantly different from gingiva (ΔE = 8.2 ± 0.7), resulting darker at L* comparison (P ≤ 0.05). TL periimplant mucosa showed higher ΔE than BL (9.0 ± 1.0 vs 6.6 ± 0.8, respectively; P ≤ 0.05). Observers correctly identified where the implant was placed in about half of the cases, with no significant difference between implant systems.

CONCLUSION

Within the limitations of this study, the color of periimplant soft tissues appears different from gingiva, at spectroscopic analysis. Color discrepancy results higher in the presence of TL implants than in BL implants, although the difference may not be clinically significant.

Stock Versus CAD/CAM Customized Zirconia Implant Abutments - Clinical and Patient-Based Outcomes in a Randomized Controlled Clinical Trial

Background

Single‐tooth replacement often requires a prefabricated dental implant and a customized crown. The benefits of individualization of the abutment remain unclear.

Purpose

This randomized controlled clinical trial aims to study potential benefits of individualization of zirconia implant abutments with respect to preservation of marginal bone level and several clinical and patient‐based outcome measures.

Material and Methods

Fifty participants with a missing premolar were included and randomly assigned to standard (ZirDesign, DentsplySirona Implants, Mölndal, Sweden) or computer aided design/computer aided manufacturing (CAD/CAM) customized (Atlantis, DentsplySirona Implants, Mölndal, Sweden) zirconia abutment therapy. Peri‐implant bone level (primary outcome), Plaque‐index, calculus formation, bleeding on probing, gingiva index, probing pocket depth, recession, appearance of soft tissues and patients' contentment were assessed shortly after placement and one year later.

Results

No implants were lost and no complications related to the abutments were observed. Statistically significant differences between stock and CAD/CAM customized zirconia abutments could not be demonstrated for any of the operationalized variables.

Conclusion

The use of a CAD/CAM customized zirconia abutment in single tooth replacement of a premolar is not associated with an improvement in clinical performance or patients' contentment when compared to the use of a stock zirconia abutment.

Aesthetic perception of single implants placed in the anterior zone. A cross-sectional study

BACKGROUND

Several aesthetic indexes have been described to assess implant aesthetics. The aim of this study was to compare the aesthetic assessment made by dental professionals and students of single-tooth implants placed in the upper incisors.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A cross-sectional survey study using a subjective questionnaire to assess the aesthetics in 3 implant supported single-tooth cases in the anterior maxilla was performed. The interviewed subjects were divided into 4 groups: dentist with experience in implant treatment, dentists without experience in implants and 3rd and 5th year dental students. The questionnaire consisted of 2 visual analogue scales (VAS) to evaluate aesthetics, the pink esthetic score (PES), the white esthetic score (WES) and the simplified papilla index (PI).

RESULTS

One-hundred dentists and one-hundred dental students filled the aesthetic assessment questionnaire. The results showed that the subjects were more critical than reference values, specially concerning prosthetic issues. The differences between groups were more obvious in the case with the best result. On the other hand, few differences were detected in the remaining cases. Regarding soft tissue and crown features, experienced dentists in implant dentistry were the most demanding. Cronbach's Alpha showed values ≥ 0,8 in the questionnaire in every case, which indicates an adequate reliability.

CONCLUSIONS

Dentists and dental students have different opinions when assessing aesthetics of single tooth implant supported cases. Experience and area of expertise seem to influence the evaluation of aesthetics in the anterior region.

Esthetic failure in implant dentistry

The definition of failure for dental implants has evolved from lack of osseointegration to increased concern for other aspects, such as esthetics. However, esthetic failure in implant dentistry has not been well defined. Although multiple esthetic indices have been validated for objectively evaluating clinical outcomes, including failure of an implant-supported crown, only one author has determined a failure threshold. On the basis of objective indices, esthetic failures in implant dentistry can be categorized as pink-tissue failures and white-tissue failures. This article discusses esthetic failures, the factors involved in these failures, and their prevention and treatment.

Patient satisfaction and esthetic outcome after immediate placement and provisionalization of single-tooth implants involving a definitive individual abutment

OBJECTIVES

To assess patient satisfaction and esthetic outcome after immediate placement and provisionalization of single-tooth implants involving a definitive individual abutment and a provisional crown followed by later placement of a definitive crown.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

In private practice, a single-tooth implant was placed immediately after tooth extraction in the esthetic zone of 54 patients. A definitive individual abutment and a provisional crown were mounted in the same visit. The definitive crown was placed after a mean period of 7 months. After a mean follow-up period of 33 months, the subjective and professional evaluation of the total implant treatment, peri-implant soft tissues, and implant crown were assessed on a 10-cm visual analog scale (VAS). The professional esthetic treatment outcome was also evaluated using pink esthetic score (PES), white esthetic score (WES), and total score of PES/WES.

RESULTS

The evaluation of total implant treatment, peri-implant soft tissues, and implant crown demonstrated a significantly higher subjective than professional score for all 3 parameters (P < 0.001), for example, for the overall treatment, the mean scores were 9.4 and 7.0, respectively. A significant positive correlation was revealed between the professional VAS scores and the PESs and WESs.

CONCLUSIONS

Immediate placement and provisionalization of single-tooth implants involving a definitive individual abutment and provisional crown followed by later placement of a definitive crown demonstrated high subjective and professional satisfaction. Generally, the professionals seem to be more critical than the patients. A strong correlation was observed between the professional VAS scores and the PES and WES scoring systems.