Fig. 9. Scatter diagrams illustrating the distribution of angle deviation of each protocol. a Anterior implants. b Posterior implants
Fig. 9. Scatter diagrams illustrating the distribution of angle deviation of each protocol. a Anterior implants. b Posterior implants
Fig. 8. Box plot diagrams illustrating the distribution of maximum angle deviation of each protocol. a Anterior implants. b Posterior implants
Fig. 8. Box plot diagrams illustrating the distribution of maximum angle deviation of each protocol. a Anterior implants. b Posterior implants
Fig. 7. Scatter diagrams illustrating the distribution of horizontal neck deviation of each protocol. a Anterior implants. b Posterior implants
Fig. 7. Scatter diagrams illustrating the distribution of horizontal neck deviation of each protocol. a Anterior implants. b Posterior implants
Fig. 6. Box plot diagrams illustrating the distribution of maximum horizontal apex deviation of each protocol. a Anterior implants. b Posterior implants
Fig. 6. Box plot diagrams illustrating the distribution of maximum horizontal apex deviation of each protocol. a Anterior implants. b Posterior implants
Fig. 5. Scatter diagrams illustrating the distribution of horizontal neck deviation of each protocol. a Anterior implants. b Posterior implants
Fig. 5. Scatter diagrams illustrating the distribution of horizontal neck deviation of each protocol. a Anterior implants. b Posterior implants
Fig. 4. Box plot diagrams illustrating the distribution of maximum horizontal neck deviation of each protocol. a Anterior implants. b Posterior implants
Fig. 4. Box plot diagrams illustrating the distribution of maximum horizontal neck deviation of each protocol. a Anterior implants. b Posterior implants
Fig. 3. Box plot diagrams illustrating the distribution of vertical deviation of each protocol. a Anterior implants. b Posterior implants
Fig. 3. Box plot diagrams illustrating the distribution of vertical deviation of each protocol. a Anterior implants. b Posterior implants
Fig. 2. a Schematic diagram illustrating the measurement of vertical, horizontal neck, horizontal apex, and angle deviations. b Three forms of horizontal deviation were measured: maximum, mesiodistal, and buccolingual directions
Fig. 2. a Schematic diagram illustrating the measurement of vertical, horizontal neck, horizontal apex, and angle deviations. b Three forms of horizontal deviation we...
Fig. 1. Flowchart summarizing the different phases of the experiment
Fig. 1. Flowchart summarizing the different phases of the experiment
Vertical implant deviation Anterior implantPosterior implantp values between anterior and posterior implants FGPGFHFGPGFHMean (mm)0.210.530.300.340.640.49FG = 0.07SD (mm)0.120.520.240.230.370.22PG = 0.27Maximum (mm)0.391.650.810.801.130.80FH = 0.05Minimum (mm)0.090.050.070.040.200.07p valuesAll groups = 0.12All groups = 0.08 Maximum horizontal implant neck deviation ...
Abduo, J., Lau, D. Accuracy of static computer-assisted implant placement in anterior and posterior sites by clinicians new to implant dentistry: in vitro comparison of fully guided, pilot-guided, and freehand protocols. Int J Implant Dent 6, 10 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1186/s40729-020-0205-3
Download citation
Received: 31 October 2019
Accepted: 21 January 2020
Published: 11 March 2020
DOI:...
Open Access This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were m...
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
This study was approved by the University of Melbourne Human Research Ethics Committee (1851406.1). The study complied with the Declaration of Helsinki. All participants were aware of the nature of the study and provided their consent prior to the commencement of the study.
Not applicable
Jaafar Abduo, and Douglas Lau declare that they have no competing interests.
Associate Professor in Prosthodontics, Convenor of Postgraduate Diploma in Clinical Dentistry (Implants), Melbourne Dental School, Melbourne University, 720 Swanston Street, Melbourne, VIC, 3010, Australia
Jaafar Abduo
Periodontist, Private Practice, Melbourne University, Melbourne, VIC, Australia
Douglas Lau
You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar
You can also search fo...
The implants, surgical kits, and guide sleeves were provided by Straumann Australia. This study has been funded by the Kernot Early Career Researcher Award. No financial income for conducting the study was received by the authors.
The authors would also like to thank Mr. Attila Gergely for his technical support in developing the simulated case and the input of the team of Digital Dental Network in designing the guides.
Deeb GR, Allen RK, Hall VP, Whitley D 3rd, Laskin DM, Bencharit S. How accurate are implant surgical guides produced with desktop stereolithographic 3-dimentional printers? J Oral Maxillofac Surgery. 2017;75:2551–9.
Horwitz J, Zuabi O, Machtei EE. Accuracy of a computerized tomography-guided template-assisted implant placement system: an in vitro study. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2009;20:1156–62...
Rungcharassaeng K, Caruso JM, Kan JY, Schutyser F, Boumans T. Accuracy of computer-guided surgery: a comparison of operator experience. J Prosthet Dent. 2015;114:407–13.
Park SJ, Leesungbok R, Cui T, Lee SW, Ahn SJ. Reliability of a CAD/CAM surgical guide for implant placement: an in vitro comparison of surgeons' experience levels and implant sites. Int J Prosthodont. 2017;30:367–9.
Marheine...
Belser UC, Mericske-Stern R, Bernard JP, Taylor TD. Prosthetic management of the partially dentate patient with fixed implant restorations. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2000;11:126–45.
Buser D, Martin W, Belser UC. Optimizing esthetics for implant restorations in the anterior maxilla: anatomic and surgical considerations. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2004;19:43–61.
Ramaglia L, Toti P, Sbordone...
Three-dimensional
Computer-aided design/computer-aided manufacturing
Cone beam computed tomography
Digital Imaging and Communications in Medicine
Fully guided
Freehand
Pilot-guided
Static computer-assisted implant placement
Surface tessellation language
The datasets used and/or analyzed during the current study are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.
Within the limitations of the present study, it can be hypothesized that apart from vertical deviation, the FG protocol is more accurate than the PG and FH protocols for all the evaluated variables in the hands of inexperienced clinicians. The PG and FH protocols were generally similar. The FG protocol did not seem to be influenced by the position of the placed implants, while the PG and FH protoc...
For the majority of the evaluated variables, there was a tendency for the posterior implants to suffer from more deviation than anterior implants. This is in accordance with several published reports [5, 21, 22]. Interestingly, implants placed by the FG protocol seemed to be less vulnerable to inaccuracy by changing the implant sites, while the PG and FH protocols showed more horizontal and angle ...
The superior accuracy and the less variation of the FG protocol is most likely related to the control of all the drilling steps and the implant placement via sequential use of precision sleeves. This eliminated the manual orientation and handling of the drills at any stage of drilling or implant placement. In accordance with these observations, Noharet et al. reported a better accuracy of the FG p...
The overall outcome of this study indicates the superiority of the FG protocol in comparison to PG and FH protocols for placing single implants. With the exception of vertical deviation, this was obvious for horizontal neck, horizontal apex, and angle deviations that were closer to the planned implant for the FG protocol than the other protocols. In addition, this superiority was shown for anterio...
In relation to the maximum angle deviation (Fig. 8), the FG protocol had less deviation than the other protocols for anterior (2.42 ± 0.98°) and posterior (2.61 ± 1.23°) implants. The PG (4.65 ± 1.78°) and FH (4.79 ± 2.08°) protocols were similar for anterior implant placement, while the FH protocol seemed more accurate for posterior implants (4.77 ± 2.09°) than the ...
In general, for all the variables, there was a tendency for the FG protocol to yield more accurate implant placement than other protocols (Table 1). In relation to vertical deviation, the PG protocol seemed to be associated with more errors. However, there was no significant difference in vertical deviation among all the protocols. Figure 3 indicates that the PG protocol was associated with deep...
The vertical deviation was measured by calculating the discrepancy along the long axis of the planned implant at the center of the platform (Fig. 2a). In addition to the magnitude of the deviation, the direction of the error was determined. The horizontal deviations were measured at the neck and the apex of the planned implant. The angle deviation was computed by measuring the angle of the long a...
For all the protocols, straight bone level Straumann dummy implants were planned. The anterior implants were 4.1 × 10 mm, while the posterior implants were 4.8 × 10 mm. The anterior implants were planned to be placed 2 mm subcrestal, while the posterior implants were planned to be placed 1 mm subcrestal.
For the conventional protocols, the clinicians had access to physical intact Ni...
The soft tissue silicone former was removed from the Nissin model to simulate bone anatomy. Subsequently, this model was duplicated with clear resin material mixed with barium sulfate and scanned by a cone beam computed tomography (CBCT) machine to generate cross-sectional DICOM images.
The DICOM images were imported to the implant planning software programs. For the FH protocol, the 2D DICOM ima...
A total of 10 qualified clinicians with a minimum of 3 years of general practice experience were invited to participate in the study. The number of participants was similar to previously published studies [12, 19], and was confirmed by sample size calculation. A mean horizontal deviation of 1 mm and an expected standard deviation of 0.75 mm that were reported from earlier studies [13, 19] were ...
Despite all the advantages of sCAIP protocols, several studies reported that they are still prone to errors and complications [7,8,9, 17, 18]. The FG and PG protocols still require thorough planning and surgical understanding and skills [11]. For multiple implants and long-span edentulous ridges, guided surgery has the advantages of being more reliable, more comfortable for the patient, and more r...
Implant treatment is a growing field in dentistry, and many clinicians aim to increase their scope of practice by including such treatment. One of the main challenges encountered by clinicians new to implant dentistry is the determination and controlling of implant location. It is the consensus that implant placement must be planned to achieve an acceptable position for an ideal restorative outcom...
One of the challenges encountered by clinicians new to implant dentistry is the determination and controlling of implant location. This study compared the accuracy of fully guided (FG) and pilot-guided (PG) static computer-assisted implant placement (sCAIP) protocols against the conventional freehand (FH) protocol for placing single anterior and posterior implants by recently introduced clinicians...
Fig. 9. Scatter diagrams illustrating the distribution of angle deviation of each protocol. a Anterior implants. b Posterior implants
Fig. 9. Scatter diagrams illustrating the distribution of angle deviation of each protocol. a Anterior implants. b Posterior implants
Fig. 8. Box plot diagrams illustrating the distribution of maximum angle deviation of each protocol. a Anterior implants. b Posterior implants
Fig. 8. Box plot diagrams illustrating the distribution of maximum angle deviation of each protocol. a Anterior implants. b Posterior implants
Fig. 7. Scatter diagrams illustrating the distribution of horizontal neck deviation of each protocol. a Anterior implants. b Posterior implants
Fig. 7. Scatter diagrams illustrating the distribution of horizontal neck deviation of each protocol. a Anterior implants. b Posterior implants
Fig. 6. Box plot diagrams illustrating the distribution of maximum horizontal apex deviation of each protocol. a Anterior implants. b Posterior implants
Fig. 6. Box plot diagrams illustrating the distribution of maximum horizontal apex deviation of each protocol. a Anterior implants. b Posterior implants
Fig. 5. Scatter diagrams illustrating the distribution of horizontal neck deviation of each protocol. a Anterior implants. b Posterior implants
Fig. 5. Scatter diagrams illustrating the distribution of horizontal neck deviation of each protocol. a Anterior implants. b Posterior implants
Fig. 4. Box plot diagrams illustrating the distribution of maximum horizontal neck deviation of each protocol. a Anterior implants. b Posterior implants
Fig. 4. Box plot diagrams illustrating the distribution of maximum horizontal neck deviation of each protocol. a Anterior implants. b Posterior implants
Fig. 3. Box plot diagrams illustrating the distribution of vertical deviation of each protocol. a Anterior implants. b Posterior implants
Fig. 3. Box plot diagrams illustrating the distribution of vertical deviation of each protocol. a Anterior implants. b Posterior implants
Fig. 2. a Schematic diagram illustrating the measurement of vertical, horizontal neck, horizontal apex, and angle deviations. b Three forms of horizontal deviation were measured: maximum, mesiodistal, and buccolingual directions
Fig. 2. a Schematic diagram illustrating the measurement of vertical, horizontal neck, horizontal apex, and angle deviations. b Three forms of horizontal deviation we...
Fig. 1. Flowchart summarizing the different phases of the experiment
Fig. 1. Flowchart summarizing the different phases of the experiment
Vertical implant deviation Anterior implantPosterior implantp values between anterior and posterior implants FGPGFHFGPGFHMean (mm)0.210.530.300.340.640.49FG = 0.07SD (mm)0.120.520.240.230.370.22PG = 0.27Maximum (mm)0.391.650.810.801.130.80FH = 0.05Minimum (mm)0.090.050.070.040.200.07p valuesAll groups = 0.12All groups = 0.08 Maximum horizontal implant neck deviation ...
Abduo, J., Lau, D. Accuracy of static computer-assisted implant placement in anterior and posterior sites by clinicians new to implant dentistry: in vitro comparison of fully guided, pilot-guided, and freehand protocols. Int J Implant Dent 6, 10 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1186/s40729-020-0205-3
Download citation
Received: 31 October 2019
Accepted: 21 January 2020
Published: 11 March 2020
DOI:...
Open Access This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were m...
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
This study was approved by the University of Melbourne Human Research Ethics Committee (1851406.1). The study complied with the Declaration of Helsinki. All participants were aware of the nature of the study and provided their consent prior to the commencement of the study.
Not applicable
Jaafar Abduo, and Douglas Lau declare that they have no competing interests.
Associate Professor in Prosthodontics, Convenor of Postgraduate Diploma in Clinical Dentistry (Implants), Melbourne Dental School, Melbourne University, 720 Swanston Street, Melbourne, VIC, 3010, Australia
Jaafar Abduo
Periodontist, Private Practice, Melbourne University, Melbourne, VIC, Australia
Douglas Lau
You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar
You can also search fo...
The implants, surgical kits, and guide sleeves were provided by Straumann Australia. This study has been funded by the Kernot Early Career Researcher Award. No financial income for conducting the study was received by the authors.
The authors would also like to thank Mr. Attila Gergely for his technical support in developing the simulated case and the input of the team of Digital Dental Network in designing the guides.
Deeb GR, Allen RK, Hall VP, Whitley D 3rd, Laskin DM, Bencharit S. How accurate are implant surgical guides produced with desktop stereolithographic 3-dimentional printers? J Oral Maxillofac Surgery. 2017;75:2551–9.
Horwitz J, Zuabi O, Machtei EE. Accuracy of a computerized tomography-guided template-assisted implant placement system: an in vitro study. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2009;20:1156–62...
Rungcharassaeng K, Caruso JM, Kan JY, Schutyser F, Boumans T. Accuracy of computer-guided surgery: a comparison of operator experience. J Prosthet Dent. 2015;114:407–13.
Park SJ, Leesungbok R, Cui T, Lee SW, Ahn SJ. Reliability of a CAD/CAM surgical guide for implant placement: an in vitro comparison of surgeons' experience levels and implant sites. Int J Prosthodont. 2017;30:367–9.
Marheine...
Belser UC, Mericske-Stern R, Bernard JP, Taylor TD. Prosthetic management of the partially dentate patient with fixed implant restorations. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2000;11:126–45.
Buser D, Martin W, Belser UC. Optimizing esthetics for implant restorations in the anterior maxilla: anatomic and surgical considerations. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2004;19:43–61.
Ramaglia L, Toti P, Sbordone...
Three-dimensional
Computer-aided design/computer-aided manufacturing
Cone beam computed tomography
Digital Imaging and Communications in Medicine
Fully guided
Freehand
Pilot-guided
Static computer-assisted implant placement
Surface tessellation language
The datasets used and/or analyzed during the current study are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.
Within the limitations of the present study, it can be hypothesized that apart from vertical deviation, the FG protocol is more accurate than the PG and FH protocols for all the evaluated variables in the hands of inexperienced clinicians. The PG and FH protocols were generally similar. The FG protocol did not seem to be influenced by the position of the placed implants, while the PG and FH protoc...
For the majority of the evaluated variables, there was a tendency for the posterior implants to suffer from more deviation than anterior implants. This is in accordance with several published reports [5, 21, 22]. Interestingly, implants placed by the FG protocol seemed to be less vulnerable to inaccuracy by changing the implant sites, while the PG and FH protocols showed more horizontal and angle ...
The superior accuracy and the less variation of the FG protocol is most likely related to the control of all the drilling steps and the implant placement via sequential use of precision sleeves. This eliminated the manual orientation and handling of the drills at any stage of drilling or implant placement. In accordance with these observations, Noharet et al. reported a better accuracy of the FG p...
The overall outcome of this study indicates the superiority of the FG protocol in comparison to PG and FH protocols for placing single implants. With the exception of vertical deviation, this was obvious for horizontal neck, horizontal apex, and angle deviations that were closer to the planned implant for the FG protocol than the other protocols. In addition, this superiority was shown for anterio...
In relation to the maximum angle deviation (Fig. 8), the FG protocol had less deviation than the other protocols for anterior (2.42 ± 0.98°) and posterior (2.61 ± 1.23°) implants. The PG (4.65 ± 1.78°) and FH (4.79 ± 2.08°) protocols were similar for anterior implant placement, while the FH protocol seemed more accurate for posterior implants (4.77 ± 2.09°) than the ...
In general, for all the variables, there was a tendency for the FG protocol to yield more accurate implant placement than other protocols (Table 1). In relation to vertical deviation, the PG protocol seemed to be associated with more errors. However, there was no significant difference in vertical deviation among all the protocols. Figure 3 indicates that the PG protocol was associated with deep...
The vertical deviation was measured by calculating the discrepancy along the long axis of the planned implant at the center of the platform (Fig. 2a). In addition to the magnitude of the deviation, the direction of the error was determined. The horizontal deviations were measured at the neck and the apex of the planned implant. The angle deviation was computed by measuring the angle of the long a...
For all the protocols, straight bone level Straumann dummy implants were planned. The anterior implants were 4.1 × 10 mm, while the posterior implants were 4.8 × 10 mm. The anterior implants were planned to be placed 2 mm subcrestal, while the posterior implants were planned to be placed 1 mm subcrestal.
For the conventional protocols, the clinicians had access to physical intact Ni...
The soft tissue silicone former was removed from the Nissin model to simulate bone anatomy. Subsequently, this model was duplicated with clear resin material mixed with barium sulfate and scanned by a cone beam computed tomography (CBCT) machine to generate cross-sectional DICOM images.
The DICOM images were imported to the implant planning software programs. For the FH protocol, the 2D DICOM ima...
A total of 10 qualified clinicians with a minimum of 3 years of general practice experience were invited to participate in the study. The number of participants was similar to previously published studies [12, 19], and was confirmed by sample size calculation. A mean horizontal deviation of 1 mm and an expected standard deviation of 0.75 mm that were reported from earlier studies [13, 19] were ...
Despite all the advantages of sCAIP protocols, several studies reported that they are still prone to errors and complications [7,8,9, 17, 18]. The FG and PG protocols still require thorough planning and surgical understanding and skills [11]. For multiple implants and long-span edentulous ridges, guided surgery has the advantages of being more reliable, more comfortable for the patient, and more r...
Implant treatment is a growing field in dentistry, and many clinicians aim to increase their scope of practice by including such treatment. One of the main challenges encountered by clinicians new to implant dentistry is the determination and controlling of implant location. It is the consensus that implant placement must be planned to achieve an acceptable position for an ideal restorative outcom...
One of the challenges encountered by clinicians new to implant dentistry is the determination and controlling of implant location. This study compared the accuracy of fully guided (FG) and pilot-guided (PG) static computer-assisted implant placement (sCAIP) protocols against the conventional freehand (FH) protocol for placing single anterior and posterior implants by recently introduced clinicians...
Fig. 4. Vestibular view of contralateral lateral incisor
Fig. 4. Vestibular view of contralateral lateral incisor
Fig. 3. Vestibular view of right lateral implant supported crown
Fig. 3. Vestibular view of right lateral implant supported crown
Fig. 2. Probing of the peri-implant sulcus
Fig. 2. Probing of the peri-implant sulcus
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
Fig. 1. a Pre-operative panoramic radiograph of the patient, (b) abutment in place, following the osseointegration period, (c) periapical radiograph at 1-year foll...
Smile line
VAS
Smile line
Correlation coefficient
1
− .699a
...
PES result
Smile line
Low (n = 4)
Medium (n = 10)
High (n = 5)
Poor (0–...
PES
WES
VAS
Spearman’s rho
VAS
Correlation coefficient
...
Esthetic score
0
1
2
PES
Mesial papilla
...
Number of patients
Percentage
Pink esthetic score
Poor (0–7)
2
10.5%
...
Implant site
Biotype
Smile line
Placement timing
PES
WES
...
Altay, M.A., Sindel, A., Tezerişener, H.A. et al. Esthetic evaluation of implant-supported single crowns: a comparison of objective and patient-reported outcomes.
Int J Implant Dent 5, 2 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1186/s40729-018-0153-3
Download citation
Received: 25 July 2018
Accepted: 09 December 2018
Published: 07 January 2019
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s40729-018-0...
Open Access This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were m...
This study was approved by the Akdeniz University Ethical Review Board.
All participants consented to publish their information details.
Dr. Altay has provided consultancy for Checkpoint Surgical LLC in 2014. All other authors declare that they have no competing interests.
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, Faculty of Dentistry, Akdeniz University, Dumlupinar Boulevard, Campus, 07058, Antalya, Turkey
Mehmet Ali Altay, Alper Sindel, Hüseyin Alican Tezerişener & Nelli Yıldırımyan
Department of Prosthodontics, Faculty of Dentistry, Akdeniz University, Antalya, Turkey
Mehmet Mustafa Özarslan
You can also search for this author in
...
Not applicable.
This study was conducted without external funding.
All data generated and analyzed during this study are included in this article.
Jivraj S, Chee W. Treatment planning of implants in the aesthetic zone. British Dental J. 2006;201(2):77–89.
Buser D, Martin W, Belser UC. Optimizing esthetics for implant restorations in the anterior maxilla: anatomic and surgical considerations. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2004;19:43–61.
Huynh-Ba G, Meister DJ, Hoders AB, Mealey BL, Mills MP, Oates TW, Cochran DL, Prihoda TJ, McMahan C...
Hof M, Umar N, Budas N, Seemann R, Pommer B, Zechner W. Evaluation of implant esthetics using eight objective indices-comparative analysis of reliability and validity. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2018;29(7):697–706.
Li X, Wu B, Cheng X, Li Y, Xie X, Deng F. Esthetic evaluation of implant-supported single crowns: the implant restoration esthetic index and patient perception. J Prosthodont. 2017. htt...
Rokn A, Bassir S, Ghahroudi AR, Kharazifard M, Manesheof R. Long-term stability of soft tissue esthetic outcomes following conventional single implant treatment in the anterior maxilla: 10-12 year results. Open Dent. 2016;10:602.
Angkaew C, Serichetaphongse P, Krisdapong S, Dart MM, Pimkhaokham A. Oral health-related quality of life and esthetic outcome in single anterior maxillary implants. Clin...
Pink esthetic score
Standard deviation
Statistical Package for the Social Sciences
Visual analogue scale
White esthetic score
Professionally reported esthetic outcomes (PES and WES results) may not significantly correlate with patient-reported outcomes, although they are helpful in monitorization of implants in the anterior zone during follow-ups. This study reveals that smile line is a significant factor in patient satisfaction, which should be evaluated thoroughly prior to implant placement in the anterior maxilla.
Only a limited number of studies compared esthetic outcomes of implants placed using different protocols [3, 25, 26]. A majority of these studies compared the results of immediate implant placement (type 1) with other protocols. Huynh-Ba et al. found no difference in terms of esthetics between type 1 and type 2 implant placement [25]. Similarly, Boardman et al. observed higher PES results followin...
In the present study, only two implants in patients with thin gingival biotypes failed to reach the clinically acceptable PES level. All other patients with both thick and thin biotypes achieved either acceptable or almost perfect scores for both PES and WES. According to the results of Angkaew et al., the PES/WES scores of patients with thick gingival biotype were significantly higher than those ...
Ever since the introduction of dental implants in the 1960s, they have been used worldwide with high success rates and accepted predictability [13]. Initial efforts of implant treatment mainly focused on osseointegration and function, whereas today, esthetics is also regarded as an essential component, which is commonly addressed together with functional goals of rehabilitation with dental implant...
All implants were loaded 3–6 months after implant surgery (conventional loading protocol); therefore, this parameter was not analyzed in this study.
The overall effect of gingival biotype and smile line on PES, WES, or VAS was studied using a general linear regression analysis for multivariate tests. Although both PES and WES were not affected (p = 0.580, p = 303; respectively), VAS wa...
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 ca...
A total of 19 (7 female and 12 male) patients, who were rehabilitated with a single implant in the anterior maxilla, were included in this study. Patients’ ages ranged between 19 and 42 with a mean of 31.8 years. None of the implants were associated with increased probing depth, bleeding, suppuration, foreign body sensation, pain, morbidity, or infection. Clinical features related to anterior s...
All patients were assessed according to the White Esthetic Score [8] which comprised the evaluation of five variables including general tooth form, tooth contour, tooth color (hue and value), surface texture, and translucence. Each variable was given a score of 0, 1, or 2. A score of 0 indicated the worst and a score of 2 indicated the best result for each variable. The implant-supported tooth was...
This study was conducted in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki on medical protocol and was approved by the Akdeniz University Ethical Review Board.
The patients rehabilitated with a single implant-supported fixed prosthesis in the maxillary esthetic zone at the departments of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery and Prosthetic Dentistry of Akdeniz University between June 2015 and April 2017 we...
Patient satisfaction, which indicates the success of the implant treatment from the patient’s perspective, is another important outcome measure and is commonly performed with questionnaires or a visual analog scale (VAS) [2, 8]. A current review of the literature, however, reveals only a limited number of studies reporting on patient-centered outcomes in addition to objective evaluations of impl...
Rehabilitation of missing teeth in the anterior maxilla with an implant-supported fixed prosthesis is a widely accepted treatment modality [1]. Dental implants have high rates of predictability in terms of osseointegration, particularly due to improvements in treatment techniques and surface topography [2]. However, rehabilitation with dental implants is not yet considered a perfect treatment moda...
This study investigated objective and patient-reported esthetic outcomes and their correlation for single-tooth implant restorations in the maxillary anterior region.
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 impl...