Esthetic evaluation of maxillary single-tooth implants in the esthetic zone.
OBJECTIVE
The aim of this study is to assess the influence exerted by the observer's dental specialization and compare patients' opinion with observers' opinion of the esthetics of maxillary single-tooth implants in the esthetic zone.


METHODS
Forty-one adult patients, who were treated with a single implant in the esthetic zone, were enrolled in this study. Eight observers (2 periodontists, 2 prosthodontists, 2 orthodontists and 2 senior dental students) applied the pink esthetic score (PES)/white esthetic score (WES) to 41 implant-supported single restorations twice with an interval of 4 weeks. We used a visual analog scale (VAS) to assess the patient's satisfaction with the treatment outcome from an esthetic point of view.


RESULTS
In the PES/WES, very good and moderate intraobserver agreements were noted between the first and second rating. The mean total PES/WES was 11.19 ± 3.59. The mean PES was 5.17 ± 2.29 and mean WES was 6.02 ± 1.96. In the total PES/WES, the difference between the groups was not significant. However, in the WES, the difference between the groups was significant and prosthodontists were found to have assigned poorer ratings than the other groups. Periodontists gave higher ratings than prosthodontists and senior dental students. Orthodontists were clearly more critical than the other observers. The statistical analysis revealed statistically significant correlation between patients' esthetic perception and dentists' perception of the anterior tooth. However, the correlation between the total PES/WES and the VAS score for the first premolar was not statistically significant.


CONCLUSIONS
The PES/WES is an objective tool in rating the esthetics of implant supported single crowns and adjacent soft tissues. Orthodontists were the most critical observers, while periodontists were more generous than other observers. The statistical analysis revealed a statistically significant correlation between patients' esthetic perception and dentists' perception of the anterior tooth.
Cho
Hae-Lyung
HL
Department of Periodontology, Gangneung-Wonju National University College of Dentistry, Gangneung, Korea.
Lee
Jae-Kwan
JK
Um
Heung-Sik
HS
Chang
Beom-Seok
BS
Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 1998 Mar-Apr;13(2):204-11
9581406
Clin Oral Implants Res. 2005 Dec;16(6):639-44
16307569
J Periodontol. 2001 Oct;72(10):1364-71
11699478
Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 1986 Summer;1(1):11-25
3527955
J Esthet Dent. 1999;11(6):311-24
10825866
J Am Dent Assoc. 1980 Mar;100(3):345-52
6928165
Dent Clin North Am. 1989 Apr;33(2):157-64
2656315
Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2004;19 Suppl:43-61
15635945
Eur J Oral Sci. 2005 Apr;113(2):159-65
15819823
Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2002 Feb;121(2):110-9; quiz 193
11840123
Clin Oral Implants Res. 2002 Aug;13(4):381-9
12175375
Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 1999 Sep-Oct;14(5):748-55
10531748
J Prosthet Dent. 1989 Nov;62(5):567-72
2691661
Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2004;19 Suppl:73-4
15635947
J Orthod. 2004 Sep;31(3):204-9; discussion 201
15489364
J Periodontol. 2009 Jan;80(1):140-51
19228100
Clin Oral Implants Res. 1998 Apr;9(2):80-90
9663035
J Esthet Restor Dent. 2008;20(6):375-84; discussion 385
19120783
J Periodontol. 2002 Sep;73(9):1060-6
12296592
Int J Periodontics Restorative Dent. 2009 Oct;29(5):535-41
19888497