title: Evaluation of the influence exerted by different dental specialty backgrounds and measuring instrument reproducibility on esthetic aspects of maxillary implant-supported single crown.
abstract: OBJECTIVE
  To evaluate the influence exerted by different dental specialty backgrounds as well as the validity and reproducibility of the Pink Esthetic Score/White Esthetic Score (PES/WES) and the modified Implant Crown Aesthetic Index (mod-ICAI) on the assessment of esthetic aspects of maxillary implants supported single-tooth prosthesis.
  
  
  METHODS
  A total of fourteen examiners (Two orthodontists, two prosthodontists, two oral surgeons, two periodontists, two dental technicians, two dental assistants, and two postgraduate students in Implant Dentistry evaluated 20 photographs of single-implant-supported crowns and five photographs of unrestored teeth of esthetic zone in a two part study. The examiners assessed the photographs with each index (Pink Esthetic Score/White Esthetic Score and modified Implant Crown Aesthetic Index), twice with a week's interval. Orders of photographs were rearranged in the second assessment.
  
  
  RESULTS
  Kruskal-Wallis test results showed significant differences among all the six specialties (P ≤ 0.001). DAs and periodontists had significantly better ratings than other specialties with both indices. Prosthodontists had the lowest mean rank scores regardless of the index. Interobserver agreement was also lowest between the two prosthodontists (4-28%), rest of the groups had low-to-moderate agreement (20-80%) when limited allowance was accepted. With mod-ICAI, more interobserver agreement was noted within the specialty group than with PES/WES.
  
  
  CONCLUSIONS
  The PES/WES and the modified ICAI can be reliable estimates of esthetic outcomes. The assessor degree of specialization affected the esthetic evaluation with both the PES/WES and the modified ICAI. DAs and periodontists were identified to provide more favorable ratings than other specialties while prosthodontists were most critical in this study. With modified ICAI, more interobserver agreement within specialty resulted. The interexaminer agreement may be increased if more tolerance of 1-2 points is considered.
authors.affiliation: Implant Dentistry, Faculty of Dentistry, The University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong, Hong Kong SAR.
authors.forename: Samriddhi
authors.initials: S
authors.lastname: Vaidya
authors.forename: Yu Lau Elaine
authors.initials: YL
authors.lastname: Ho
authors.forename: Jie
authors.initials: J
authors.lastname: Hao
authors.forename: Niklaus P
authors.initials: NP
authors.lastname: Lang
authors.forename: Nikos
authors.initials: N
authors.lastname: Mattheos
mesh_terms: D003442:Crowns; D019250:Dental Implants, Single-Tooth; D019094:Dental Prosthesis, Implant-Supported; D004955:Esthetics, Dental / Q000145:classification*; D006801:Humans; D008437:Maxilla; D023861:Photography, Dental; D015203:Reproducibility of Results; D013039:Specialties, Dental
keywords: esthetics; implant restoration; modified implant crown aesthetic index; pink esthetic score/white esthetic score