Patient-reported outcomes of esthetics, function and oral hygiene with single dental implants 10–15 years after placement: a cross-sectional study
Aims: Little attention has been paid to patients’ perception of function and esthetics with single dental implants. The aim of this study was therefore to describe patient-reported function and esthetic outcomes in single dental implants. A second aim was to study the objective esthetics in single...
Saved in:
| Main Authors: | , , |
|---|---|
| Format: | Article |
| Language: | English |
| Published: |
Medical Journals Sweden
2025-01-01
|
| Series: | Acta Odontologica Scandinavica |
| Subjects: | |
| Online Access: | https://medicaljournalssweden.se/actaodontologica/article/view/42724 |
| Tags: |
Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
|
| Summary: | Aims: Little attention has been paid to patients’ perception of function and esthetics with single dental implants. The aim of this study was therefore to describe patient-reported function and esthetic outcomes in single dental implants. A second aim was to study the objective esthetics in single dental implants.
Material and methods: Patients with one single dental implant in the esthetic zone were selected. Two questionnaires with visual analog scales (VAS) were filled in by the patients, and intraoral photographs were taken. One of the questionnaires related to satisfaction with cleaning and function, and the other involved the esthetics of the single dental implant. One dentist reviewed the photographs using the pink esthetic score/white esthetic score (PES/WES) index.
Results: For chewing and for speaking, the scores were 8.8 and 9.9 respectively on a VAS (best 10). The overall esthetic score on a VAS was 8.6 (best 10). The PES/WES in the present study was 14.6 (standard deviation [SD] ± 1.9), and 3/45 (6.7%) of the single dental implants never reached clinical acceptability.
Conclusions: Patients reported high satisfaction with both the function and the esthetics of single dental implants. Both subjectively and objectively, the peri-implant mucosa was less favorable compared with the crown.
|
|---|---|
| ISSN: | 0001-6357 1502-3850 |