This website uses cookies to store information on your computer. Some of these cookies are used for visitor analysis, others are essential to making our site function properly and improve the user experience. By using this site, you consent to the placement of these cookies. Click Accept to consent and dismiss this message or Deny to leave this website. Read our Privacy Statement for more.
Print Page | Sign In | Register
News & Press: Dental News

Aesthetic differences

jeudi 31 octobre 2019   (0 Comments)
Posted by: Paola Pino
Share |

Study examines the aesthetic differences between immediate or early implant placement and immediate restoration


Implant-borne single-tooth restorations are a well-documented treatment for the anterior maxilla. The aesthetic aspects of these rehabilitations have increasingly come into focus, evaluating the soft tissue around the implant as well as the prosthetic restoration itself. This study compared the White Esthetic Score for two standardised treatment approaches in a randomised clinical trial, with the hypothesis that the differing treatment modalities would not result in significantly different outcomes.

24 patients with a single failing maxillary incisor were randomly assigned to receive an implant either directly after tooth extraction (Immediate Implant Placement, IIP, n = 12), or after a healing period of 6 weeks (Early Implant Placement, EIP, n = 12). The alveolar ridge was always grafted with a bovine bone substitute and a collagen membrane. All implants were professionalized within 24 hours. Final restorations in both groups were delivered 12 weeks later.

Approximately 6 months after completion of treatment, standardised photographs were taken, utilising a special camera stand to ensure comparability. Five dental professionals assessed the aesthetic outcome of the implant restorations with the White Esthetic Score. The professionals’ assessment was based on five areas: 1. General tooth form, 2. Crown outline and volume, 3. Colour, 4. Surface texture, and 5. Translucency/characterisation.

For all five single parameters, results were slightly better in the IIP group, yet not significantly. Both methods rendered comparable aesthetic results, by trend with a better outcome for IIP. A relatively large discrepancy was found for crown outline and volume. The authors note that. Both types of placement received low values for translucency/characterisation, but this may be explained by the difficulty of assessing this based on a photographic image.

This study was presented as an e-poster at the 2018 EAO Congress.

Our Mission
As one of the leading associations within the field of implant dentistry in the world, the EAO aims to improve the quality of patient care by bridging the gap between science and clinical practice.
EAO Office
38 rue Croix des Petits Champs, 75001 Paris, France
+33 (0)1 42 36 62 20
Stay Connected
Find A Dentist