Peri-implant soft-tissue esthetic outcome after immediate implant placement in conjunction with xenogeneic acellular dermal matrix or connective tissue graft: A randomized controlled clinical study

OBJECTIVES

This randomized comparative study evaluated the clinical esthetic outcome of the peri-implant mucosa following extraction and immediate implant placement in conjunction with anorganic bovine bone mineral (ABBM) and the use of a porcine acellular dermal matrix (pADM) versus an autogenous connective tissue graft (CTG) in the anterior maxilla.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Twenty patients (11 men, 9 women) with a mean age of 48,9 years (range 21-72) were included in the study and randomly assigned to either the test (pADM) or control group (CTG). They underwent extraction and immediate implant placement together with ABBM for socket grafting and either pADM or CTG for soft tissue augmentation. Twelve months after implant placement color measurements of the peri-implant mucosa and a reference tooth were performed using a spectophotometer and the color difference (ΔE) was calculated. The overall esthetic appearance of the peri-implant soft tissue was evaluated using the Pink Esthetic Score (PES). Statistical analysis was performed using Student's T-Test, the alpha was set to 0.05.

RESULTS

All implants received osseointegration and were restored. The mean color difference of the peri-implant mucosa 1 year after surgery amounted ΔE 4.06 ± 1.6 for the test group (pADM) and ΔE 3.58 ± 1.36 mm for the control group (CTG), showing no statistically significant difference (p = 0.47). The mean PES of the pADM group was 11.4 ± 1.4 and for the CTG group 10.7 ± 1.5, showing no statistically significant difference (p = 0.29).

CONCLUSION

Twelve months after surgery, a porcine acellular dermal matrix for soft tissue augmentation in conjunction with immediate implant placement showed no difference in the overall esthetic appearance regarding color match and Pink Esthetic Score in comparison to autogenous soft tissue graft.

CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE

Connective tissue grafts have become a standard in order to enhance the soft tissue quality and esthetic appearance in immediate implant placement. The use of new biomaterials like porcine acellular dermal matrices may avoid the need to harvest autogenous grafts resulting in simplified treatment and less postoperative morbidity.

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.

Evaluation of implant esthetics using eight objective indices-Comparative analysis of reliability and validity

OBJECTIVES

The aim of the present study was to give a detailed analysis on eight proposed implant esthetic indices including a total of 48 parameters with respect to validity and reproducibility as well as its correlation to patients' perception of esthetics.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

Standardized intraoral photographs of 189 patients with 189 implant-supported crowns and adjacent peri-implant soft tissue in the esthetic zone (central and lateral incisors, canine, first premolar) served as basis for this evaluation. Eight indices (Papilla Index [PI], Pink Esthetic Score [PES], Implant Crown Aesthetic Index [ICAI], Pink and White Esthetic Score [PES/WES], Complex Esthetic Index [CEI], Implant Aesthetic Score [IAS], Subjective Esthetic Score [SES], and Rompen Index) with a total of 48 parameters were selected. Esthetic evaluation was performed twice by five examiners with an interval of 4 weeks between the evaluations.

RESULTS

A total of 1,890 evaluations including eight esthetic indices served as basis for the statistical analysis. Among the overall main scores tested for inter-rater reliability, the highest ρ^inter values were computed for CEI, PES, PI, and IAS scores. By contrast, SES and Rompen showed the worst inter-rater reliability, respectively. The highest level of intra-rater reproducibility was noted for PI, PES, and CEI. The lowest level of intra-rater reproducibility showed Rompen, SES, and ICA. The Papilla Index demonstrated the highest level of inter-rater reliability. The remainder of the single variables (n = 46) did not reach the ρ^inter level of 0.6. The single variables PI mesial, PI distal as well as CEI P4 showed the highest ρ^intra with statistical significance higher than 0.8. The lowest agreement was observed among the variables ICA3, WES5, and IASm2. In general, VAS did not show any good correlation to the esthetic indices proposed so far. The influence of esthetic parameters on subjective patient satisfaction was generally low.

CONCLUSION

In conclusion, significant differences regarding reliability and validity could be observed in the present comparison of eight esthetic indices. Objective evaluation of the esthetic outcome of implant therapy inherently fails to reflect subjective patient opinion, however, requires consistency of results to enable between-study comparison and meta-analysis.

Preservation of extraction socket in immediate implant placement: a clinical study

AIM

The objective of this study was to compare different approaches temporary restoration in an immediate implant placement. To determine the respective influence of each parameter, two treatment groups were formed; a strict and standardized study protocol was applied to minimize the influence of bias and confounding factors. The Pink Esthetic Score (PES) - the esthetic out-come of soft tissue appearance was evaluated.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

Sixteen patients with a single failing tooth in the maxilla and a natural contralateral site were randomly distributed into two groups. Treatment variations affected the provisional restorative in detail, group 1 with immediate implant placement and immediate temporary restoration with the simulation of the first three mm of the root and the seal of the socket, group 2 with immediate implant placement and immediate temporary restoration without the seal of the socket. All patients received the final prosthetic restoration 10-12 weeks after implant placement. Standardized photographs were taken eight months after tooth extraction. Five competent observers analyzed the esthetic outcome according to the PES.

RESULTS

The overall scores of the four treatment groups revealed PES values of 8.47 (SD 2.08, group 1), 6.62 (SD 3.24, group 2). The differences between groups 1 and 2 and were statistically significant (P=0.015 and P=0.047). The single parameter analysis displayed a certain range of fluctuation and heterogeneity.

CONCLUSIONS

Immediate implant placement and restoration appear to be a suitable alternative to early implant placement if an experienced surgeon is entrusted with the implantation procedure.

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

Purpose:

The present study aimed to evaluate the long-term stability of esthetic outcomes of soft tissue around maxillary anterior single-tooth implants after 10-to-12 years of loading.

Methods:

Patients who had been treated for single-tooth implants in the anterior maxilla between February 2000 and July 2002 were invited to participate in the study. All implants had been placed according to delayed implant placement and conventional loading protocols without any connective tissue graft or papilla preservation flaps. Pink Esthetic Score (PES) was rated using standardized clinical photographs to assess the esthetic outcomes of the implant treatment at the time of crown placement and at time of follow-up examination which was at least 10 years after the crown placement.

Results:

A total of 19 patients were included. The mean score of PES was 11.63 (SD 1.61; range 7-14) at baseline. After 10-to-12 years of function, a mean PES score of 11.05 (SD 2.09; range 6–14) was recorded. No significant differences were found in the esthetic outcomes, categorized based on clinically relevant levels, between the baseline and follow-up session (p>0.05).

Conclusion:

Within limitation of the present study, it can be concluded that the esthetic outcomes of soft tissue around the maxillary anterior single-tooth implants placed using conventional implant placement technique remained stable in the long-term.