Results : Esthetic evaluation of implant-supported single crowns: a comparison of objective and patient-reported outcomes [2]
Question4. “How do you feel about the color of the gum that is around your new implant tooth?” Mean patient rating was calculated as 8.4 (range 2–10, SD ± 2.0). Median score was 9. Fifteen patients responded with a score of ≥ 8 and 17 patients responded with a score of ≥ 6.
Question5. “What is your overall satisfaction with the new implant tooth?” Mean patient rating was calculated as 8.8 (range 5–10, SD ± 1.6). Median score was 9. Sixteen patients responded with a score of ≥ 8 and 17 patients responded with a score of ≥ 6.
Spearman’s correlation test failed to show any significant associations between the overall mean VAS results and PES or WES (p = 0.475, p = 0.984, respectively) (Table 4).
Majority of the patients (13 out of 19) were found to have thick gingival biotype and 6 patients had thin gingival biotype. When these patients were evaluated according to their gingival biotypes, those with thin and thick biotypes had mean PES values of 9.83 (range 5–13, SD ± 3.43) and 11.23 (range 8–13, SD ± 1.36), respectively. WES for thin and thick-biotyped patients were found to be 8.67 (range 8–9, SD ± 0.52) and 8.62 (range 8–10, SD ± 0.65), respectively. PES and WES scores for each group of patients (i.e., thin and thick biotypes) failed to show any statistically significant difference (p = 0.701, p = 0.831; Mann-Whitney U test).
Low, medium, or high smile lines were determined in four, ten, and five patients, respectively (Table 5).
There was a significant negative correlation between the smile line and VAS; meaning that patients with lower smile lines expressed higher patient satisfaction (p = .001, Spearman’s correlation analysis) (Table 6).
Type 2 (early, with soft tissue healing) and type 3 (early, with partial bone healing) placement protocols were followed for five implants each, whereas type 4 (late, with complete bone healing) placement was the most common protocol accounting for nine of the implants. Immediate implant placement (type 1) was not utilized in any patient. PES and WES for different placement protocol groups (i.e., type 2, 3, or 4) failed to show any statistically significant difference (p = 0.296, p = 301 respectively; Kruskal-Wallis test).
Serial posts:
- Abstract : Esthetic evaluation of implant-supported single crowns: a comparison of objective and patient-reported outcomes
- Background : Esthetic evaluation of implant-supported single crowns: a comparison of objective and patient-reported outcomes [1]
- Background : Esthetic evaluation of implant-supported single crowns: a comparison of objective and patient-reported outcomes [2]
- Methods : Esthetic evaluation of implant-supported single crowns: a comparison of objective and patient-reported outcomes [1]
- Methods : Esthetic evaluation of implant-supported single crowns: a comparison of objective and patient-reported outcomes [2]
- Results : Esthetic evaluation of implant-supported single crowns: a comparison of objective and patient-reported outcomes [1]
- Results : Esthetic evaluation of implant-supported single crowns: a comparison of objective and patient-reported outcomes [2]
- Results : Esthetic evaluation of implant-supported single crowns: a comparison of objective and patient-reported outcomes [3]
- Discussion : Esthetic evaluation of implant-supported single crowns: a comparison of objective and patient-reported outcomes [1]
- Discussion : Esthetic evaluation of implant-supported single crowns: a comparison of objective and patient-reported outcomes [2]
- Discussion : Esthetic evaluation of implant-supported single crowns: a comparison of objective and patient-reported outcomes [3]
- Conclusions : Esthetic evaluation of implant-supported single crowns: a comparison of objective and patient-reported outcomes
- Abbreviations : Esthetic evaluation of implant-supported single crowns: a comparison of objective and patient-reported outcomes
- References : Esthetic evaluation of implant-supported single crowns: a comparison of objective and patient-reported outcomes [1]
- References : Esthetic evaluation of implant-supported single crowns: a comparison of objective and patient-reported outcomes [2]
- References : Esthetic evaluation of implant-supported single crowns: a comparison of objective and patient-reported outcomes [3]
- Acknowledgements : Esthetic evaluation of implant-supported single crowns: a comparison of objective and patient-reported outcomes
- Author information : Esthetic evaluation of implant-supported single crowns: a comparison of objective and patient-reported outcomes
- Ethics declarations : Esthetic evaluation of implant-supported single crowns: a comparison of objective and patient-reported outcomes
- Rights and permissions : Esthetic evaluation of implant-supported single crowns: a comparison of objective and patient-reported outcomes
- About this article : Esthetic evaluation of implant-supported single crowns: a comparison of objective and patient-reported outcomes
- Table 1 Clinical features of the implants (Of: Esthetic evaluation of implant)
- Table 2 Esthetic scores, sub-classification of the results (Of: Esthetic evaluation of implant)
- Table 3 Detailed results of pink and white esthetic score analyses (Of: Esthetic evaluation of implant)
- Table 4 Spearman’s correlation test between VAS and PES or WES (Of: Esthetic evaluation of implant)
- Table 5 PES of patients with different smile lines (Of: Esthetic evaluation of implant)
- Table 6 Spearman’s correlation test between smile line and VAS (Of: Esthetic evaluation of implant)
- Fig. 1. a Pre-operative panoramic radiograph of the patient, (b) abutment in place, following the osseointegration period, (c) periapical radiograph at 1-year follow up, (d) final restoration at 1-year follow up, and (e) smile line : Esthetic evaluation of implant
- Fig. 2. Probing of the peri-implant sulcus : Esthetic evaluation of implant
- Fig. 3. Vestibular view of right lateral implant supported crown : Esthetic evaluation of implant
- Fig. 4. Vestibular view of contralateral lateral incisor : Esthetic evaluation of implant