4.5 Article

Esthetic evaluation of single-tooth implants in the anterior mandible

期刊

CLINICAL ORAL IMPLANTS RESEARCH
卷 25, 期 9, 页码 1022-1026

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/clr.12210

关键词

anterior mandible; dental implants; implant esthetics; mucosal recession; prosthetic restoration; single crown; single-tooth replacement

资金

  1. Department of Oral Surgery, Bernhard Gottlieb School of Dentistry, Medical University of Vienna

向作者/读者索取更多资源

ObjectivesSingle-tooth replacement of anterior mandibular teeth is frequently complicated by insufficient bucco-lingual bone width and limited mesio-distal space available for implant placement. The aim of the present study was to assess implant esthetics in the partially edentulous anterior mandible. Material and methodsEsthetic evaluation of 43 anterior mandibular single-tooth implants in 15 women and 28 men was performed using esthetic indices (PES=Pink Esthetic Score, PI=Papilla Index, SES=Subjective Esthetic Score) as well as subjective patients' Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) ratings. Clinical and radiological parameters (implant and crown dimensions, pocket depth, bleeding on probing, plaque, keratinized mucosa, marginal bone level, and distance to adjacent teeth) were tested for influence. ResultsImplant esthetics were judged satisfactory (PES 10) in 42% of implants compared with a patient satisfaction rate of 87%. Correlation between objective indices (PES/PI: r(s)=0.62, PES/SES: r(s)=-0.73, PI/SES: r(s)=-0.48) was highly significant (P0.001); however, no association to subjective patients' ratings could be observed. Type of prosthetic restoration (single crown vs. tulip-shaped double crowns), mesio-distal crown width as well as anatomic crown length significantly affected esthetic scores. Patients' judgment, by contrast, could not be associated to any prognostic factor. ConclusionSubjective patient satisfaction with implant esthetics in the partially edentulous anterior mandible is high, however, remains hard to predict or objectively quantify.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据