Long-term Stability of Soft Tissue Esthetic Outcomes Following Conventional Single Implant Treatment in the Anterior Maxilla: 10-12 Year Results

Evaluation of the effect of anodization-colored titanium abutments and zirconia substructure thickness on zirconia substructure color: An In vitro study

BACKGROUND AND AIM

The aim of this study is to evaluate the effect of anodized titanium abutments and zirconia substructure thickness on the color of zirconia substructure.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

In this study, an electrochemical anodization setup was prepared for titanium coloring. Commercial titanium, anodization-colored yellow and pink titanium, and zirconia were used as different abutment specimens. Thirty zirconia discs in 0.7, 0.9, and 1.1 mm thickness were prepared from zirconia blocks as zirconia substructure specimens (n = 10). Zirconia substructure specimens of different thicknesses were placed on abutment specimens of different colors and L*, a*, b* values were measured with a spectrophotometer device. Color difference (ΔE) was calculated according to the CIELab formula by comparing the L*, a*, and b* values obtained on the zirconia abutment with the L*, a*, and b* values obtained on the other abutments. Statistical analyzes were performed with two-way analysis of variance and Tukey Honestly Significant Difference (HSD)test (p < 0.05).

RESULTS

The increase in the thickness of the substructure resulted in a statistically significant difference on ΔE, L*, a*, and b* values (p < 0.001). The effect of abutment color had no significant effect on ΔE values. The highest ΔE value was 18.10 at zirconia substructure with 0.7 mm thickness when paired with pink-anodized titanium abutment specimens.

CONCLUSION

The thickness of zirconia substructure and the color of titanium abutments affect zirconia substructure color.

Esthetic complications in implant dentistry

Esthetic complications in implant dentistry have become a significant consideration for patients and practitioners. This review presents an appraisal on the current knowledge of the physiological peri-implant soft-tissue dimensions and factors that may compromise peri-implant tissue esthetics. Factors such as papilla fill adjacent to the implant and midfacial mucosal height are critical parameters that determine the esthetic success of implant-supported restorations. Papilla fill adjacent to a single dental implant appears to depend upon the clinical attachment level of the neighboring tooth. A horizontal inter-implant distance of at least 3 mm is necessary to ensure optimal interproximal mucosal embrasure between two adjacent implants in the anterior maxilla. In cases where implants cannot be placed at least 3 mm apart, a single implant with a cantilever bridge should be considered. Buccolingual implant positioning plays a major role in midfacial mucosal height. Soft-tissue volume grafting following immediate implant placement in the presence of a thin soft-tissue phenotype or simultaneous to surgical peri-implantitis therapy might help to overcome facial mucosa recession.

Clinical Evaluation of Pink Esthetic Score of Immediately Impressed Posterior Dental Implants

PURPOSE

While comparative outcome results for peri-implant crestal bone levels, mucosal margin position, and peri-implant indices have been reported, no studies are available that evaluate and compare the esthetic result of impressions performed immediately with that of impressions performed of healed implants. The purpose of this cross-sectional study was to evaluate the Pink Esthetic Score (PES) of posterior implants restored with an immediate impression workflow compared to implants restored with a delayed impression workflow.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

Twenty-eight eligible participants who had received a single implant crown either in the premolar or molar regions at least 4 months before the study, were identified by an electronic health record review and scheduled for a single-visit study appointment. Esthetic outcomes were measured using the Pink Esthetic Score (PES). Several local- and prosthesis-related factors were recorded and their association with the selected outcome was assessed. Two-sample t-test was used for comparisons between the groups.

RESULTS

PES ranged between 4 and 12 (mean: 8). No significant difference between immediate (8.36 ± 1.12) and delayed (7.76 ± 2.14) impression workflow groups were seen for the total PES (p = 0.25). In addition, individual comparisons between immediately and delayed impressed implants for mesial papilla (1.27 ± 0.47; 0.88 ± 0.78), distal papilla (0.73 ± 0.65; 0.76 ± 0.83), tissue margin (1.73 ± 0.47; 1.47 ± 0.51), tissue contour (1.27 ± 0.65; 0.82 ± 0.64), alveolar process (0.82 ± 0.60; 1.00 ± 0.87), color (1.27 ± 0.65; 1.29 ± 0.69), and texture (1.36 ± 0.50; 1.53 ± 0.62) did not show significant differences.

CONCLUSIONS

The current study suggests that the Pink Esthetic Score is not significantly different between single posterior implants impressed with the immediate and delayed implant workflows. This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.

Esthetic Outcome and Oral Health-Related Quality of Life after Restoration with Single Anterior Maxillary Implants

Background/Aim: To evaluate the esthetic outcome of single implant restorations and the correlation of these esthetic results between patient satisfaction and oral health-related quality of life (OHRQoL).

Material and Methods: 15 patients with single-tooth implants in the anterior maxilla region were included in this study. Patients were clinically followed to evaluate the esthetic outcomes of implant prostheses and photographs of the implant site were obtained using a digital camera. A researcher evaluated the photographs according to the pink esthetic score/white esthetic score (PES/WES) index. Patients were asked to complete a questionnaire including 13 questions to evaluate their satisfaction with the overall implant and restoration treatments using by visual analogue scale (VAS). OHRQoL was evaluated by patients with the questionnaire Oral Health Impact Profile-14 (OHIP-14).

Results: The mean PES/WES was 13.6. In Ohip-14 questionnaire, the questions were answered ‘never’ generally. The mean VAS score was 9.01±0.9 and ranged from 7.6 to 9.7. There was no correlation between VAS and PES/WES (p= 0.484), similarly, there was no correlation between OHIP-14 and PES/WES (p= 0.763).

Conclusions: All of the implant restorations’ PES/WES scores were clinically acceptable. Professionals evaluated the esthetic outcome more suspicious than patients. Patients were satisfied with the esthetic results.

Does timing of implant placement affect esthetic results in single-tooth implants? A cohort evaluation based on mPES

OBJECTIVE

This study sought to use the mPES to assess various maxillary implant surgical results and placement timing in the esthetic zone.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This cohort study was conducted on 146 patients undergoing immediate, early, and late implantation. They received maxillary single-tooth implants in the anterior region during the past 5 years. Patients were clinically examined to determine their mPES and patient-/implant-related parameters. Simple and multiple nominal regression analyses were applied to show how such parameters correlated with mPES.

RESULTS

The results were found to be in three categories namely the most clinically excellent, acceptable, and unacceptable. Although the most frequent clinically excellent results were noted in the late implantation (late 49.0%, early 25.6%, immediate 24.1%); early implantation was the group with the least frequent clinically unacceptable results (late 16.3%, early 4.7%, immediate 14.8%). The mean width of keratinized tissue was significantly more in patients with clinically excellent results (P-value = 0.01).

CONCLUSION

Within the limitations of this study, the author(s) drew the following conclusions: (a) the late implant placement was more likely to be reliable and esthetically acceptable, (b) early implant placement remained the safest method to prevent unaesthetic appearance, and (c) Width of keratinized gingiva (≥3 mm) was a significant factor to achieve implant esthetic results.

CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE

Maxillary single-tooth implants in the anterior region often have optimal osseointegration and functional performance, but esthetic plays a significant role in the success of these implants. So the aim of the present study was to employ mPES to assess the effect of placement timing and other patient and implant-related variables on esthetic outcomes.

Gingival recession behavior with immediate implant placement in the anterior maxilla with buccal dehiscence without additional augmentation—a pilot study

Background

Immediate implant placement in the presence of intact extraction alveoli has frequently been reported, while hardly any reports on immediate implant placement in missing buccal bone can be found in literature.

Objectives

This pilot study evaluates esthetic outcome and soft and hard tissue level changes of immediate implant placement with immediate provisionalization in patients with partially/completely missing buccal bone without any further augmentation procedure in the maxillary anterior zone.

Material and methods

Twelve patients (TG) with partially to completely missing buccal bone designated for extraction and flapless immediate implant insertion in the anterior zone of the maxilla were included. Patients randomly selected out of a larger group of patients with immediate implants with intact alveoli served as controls (CG). Immediate provisionalization was done without any further augmentation of the alveolar ridge. Marginal hard and soft tissue levels, PES, and implant success were evaluated during a 1-year observation period.

Results

The defect of the buccal alveolar bone was 4.96 mm (min., 2.26 mm; max., 9.68 mm) and the mean mesio-distal extension 4.25 mm (min., 3.2 mm; max., 5.91 mm). Preoperative PES differed significantly between TG (9.68) and CG (12.25) and improved in TG postoperatively with no significant difference to CG after 1 year (TG, 10.91; CG, 11.3). The buccal soft tissue level remained almost unchanged over the observation period (TG preop, 0.86 mm ± 0.90 mm; 1 year, 0.91 mm ± 0.96 mm; CG preop, 0.98 mm ± 0.87 mm; 1 year, 0.98 mm ± 0.87 mm and did not show any correlation with either the mesial/distal bone level or the initial buccal vertical defect at any point of time.

Conclusions

These clinical results provide evidence that immediate implant placement without additional augmentation, but with immediate provisionalization might be a viable treatment alternative even with missing buccal plate in the esthetic maxillary zone.

Esthetic evaluation of implant-supported single crowns: a comparison of objective and patient-reported outcomes

Background

This study investigated objective and patient-reported esthetic outcomes and their correlation for single-tooth implant restorations in the maxillary anterior region.

Methods

Nineteen patients were included. Gingival biotypes and smile lines were evaluated. Esthetic evaluation was performed according to the pink and white esthetic scores (PES and WES). Patients rated their satisfaction regarding the implant treatment using a subjective outcome questionnaire and a 10-cm visual analogue scale (VAS).

Results

The mean PES and WES were 10.7 (range 5–13, SD ± 2.24) and 8.6 (range 8–10, SD ± 0.60), respectively. The overall mean VAS was 8.54 ± 0.36 (range 3.8–9.8). No significant correlation was found between VAS and PES or WES (p = 0.475, p = 0.984, respectively). PES and WES scores for gingival biotypes failed to show any statistically significant difference (p = 0.701, p = 0.831). There was a significant negative correlation between the smile line and VAS; indicating that patients with lower smile lines expressed higher patient satisfaction (p = .001).

Conclusions

Professionally reported esthetic outcomes (PES and WES results) may not correlate with patient-reported outcomes. Smile line is a significant factor in patient satisfaction, which should be evaluated thoroughly prior to implant placement in the anterior maxilla.