KU Leuven-Department of Oral Health Sciences, UZ Leuven University Hospitals Leuven-Prosthetic & Restorative Dentistry, Leuven, Belgium.
KU Leuven-Department of Oral Health Sciences, UZ Leuven University Hospitals Leuven-Periodontology, Leuven, Belgium.
Clin Implant Dent Relat Res. 2020 Feb;22(1):128-137. doi: 10.1111/cid.12882. Epub 2020 Jan 7.
BACKGROUND: Peri-implant soft tissues esthetics varies and depends on the restoration type such as implant-supported single crowns, adjacent multiple single crowns, and fixed partial dentures (FPD). PURPOSE: The aim of this prospective study was to assess the esthetic outcome of the peri-implant soft tissues of (NobelBiocare™) implant-supported single crowns, adjacent multiple single crowns, and FPD. A potential association between the esthetic risk profile and the esthetic outcome was assessed. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Between 03/11 and 03/17, 300 NobelActive implants were installed in 153 partially edentulous patients. Prior to the fabrication of the final restoration, the esthetic risk profile (ERP) of the patient was determined. The pink esthetic score (PES) and white esthetic score (WES) were assessed by three investigators at 6 and 12 months post-insertion of the final restoration. Patients' appreciation was assessed on a visual analogue scale (VAS) at the 1-year follow-up. RESULTS: The clinical acceptable limit for PES (≥6) was achieved in 56% to 68% of the single crowns at 6 and 12 months, respectively. Clinically unacceptable PES scores were recorded for 48% of the adjacent multiple single crowns and 63% of the FPDs at both time points. The association of a high ERP with WES and PESWES was noticed for single implant-supported crowns. For the latter restoration type, a ≤5 mm distance between the crestal bone level and the proximal contact positively influenced the PES and combined PESWES scores. No correlation was found between PES or WES and patient satisfaction. Mesial papilla formation was more pronounced compared to the distal one for the single implant crowns and for implant-supported FPD. CONCLUSION: When high esthetic demands are expected, assessment of ERP prior to implant treatment is advised in order to estimate a realistic outcome.
背景:种植体周围软组织的美观因人而异,取决于修复类型,如种植体支持的单冠、相邻的多单位单冠和固定局部义齿(FPD)。
目的:本前瞻性研究旨在评估(NobelBiocare™)种植体支持的单冠、相邻多单位单冠和 FPD 种植体周围软组织的美学效果。评估了美学风险状况与美学效果之间的潜在关联。
材料和方法:2011 年 3 月 11 日至 2011 年 3 月 17 日,在 153 名部分缺牙患者中植入了 300 个 NobelActive 种植体。在制作最终修复体之前,确定了患者的美学风险状况(ERP)。在最终修复体植入后 6 个月和 12 个月,由三位研究者评估了粉红色美学评分(PES)和白色美学评分(WES)。在 1 年随访时,患者通过视觉模拟量表(VAS)评估了自己的满意度。
结果:单冠在 6 个月和 12 个月时,PES(≥6)的临床可接受限分别达到 56%至 68%。在两个时间点,相邻多单位单冠的临床不可接受 PES 评分分别为 48%,FPD 为 63%。高 ERP 与单种植体支持的单冠的 WES 和 PESWES 相关。对于后者的修复类型,种植体冠方骨嵴与近中接触点之间的距离≤5mm 可正面影响 PES 和综合 PESWES 评分。PES 或 WES 与患者满意度之间无相关性。与单冠和种植体支持的 FPD 相比,近中乳头的形成更为明显。
结论:当需要高美学要求时,建议在种植治疗前评估 ERP,以估计现实的结果。
Zhonghua Kou Qiang Yi Xue Za Zhi. 2021-4-9
Clin Oral Implants Res. 2010-9-24
Clin Oral Implants Res. 2015-8
Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2014
J Craniofac Surg. 2025-6-1