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...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Main Authors: Viveca Wallin Bengtsson, Christel Lindahl, Sven Scholander
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!
_version_ 1832592251983757312
author Viveca Wallin Bengtsson
Christel Lindahl
Sven Scholander
author_facet Viveca Wallin Bengtsson
Christel Lindahl
Sven Scholander
author_sort Viveca Wallin Bengtsson
collection DOAJ
description 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.
format Article
id doaj-art-e4591ba2690e48f1a11a41f23de07155
institution Kabale University
issn 0001-6357
1502-3850
language English
publishDate 2025-01-01
publisher Medical Journals Sweden
record_format Article
series Acta Odontologica Scandinavica
spelling doaj-art-e4591ba2690e48f1a11a41f23de071552025-01-21T12:49:36ZengMedical Journals SwedenActa Odontologica Scandinavica0001-63571502-38502025-01-018410.2340/aos.v84.42724Patient-reported outcomes of esthetics, function and oral hygiene with single dental implants 10–15 years after placement: a cross-sectional studyViveca Wallin Bengtsson0https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8092-665XChristel Lindahl1Sven Scholander2Department of Oral Health, Faculty of Oral Health Science, Kristianstad University, Kristianstad, SwedenDepartment of Oral Health, Faculty of Oral Health Science, Kristianstad University, Kristianstad, SwedenPrivate Practice, Kristianstad, Sweden 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. https://medicaljournalssweden.se/actaodontologica/article/view/42724Dental estheticspatient-reported outcome measurementsperi-implant mucositisperi-implantitissingle dental implant
spellingShingle Viveca Wallin Bengtsson
Christel Lindahl
Sven Scholander
Patient-reported outcomes of esthetics, function and oral hygiene with single dental implants 10–15 years after placement: a cross-sectional study
Acta Odontologica Scandinavica
Dental esthetics
patient-reported outcome measurements
peri-implant mucositis
peri-implantitis
single dental implant
title Patient-reported outcomes of esthetics, function and oral hygiene with single dental implants 10–15 years after placement: a cross-sectional study
title_full Patient-reported outcomes of esthetics, function and oral hygiene with single dental implants 10–15 years after placement: a cross-sectional study
title_fullStr Patient-reported outcomes of esthetics, function and oral hygiene with single dental implants 10–15 years after placement: a cross-sectional study
title_full_unstemmed Patient-reported outcomes of esthetics, function and oral hygiene with single dental implants 10–15 years after placement: a cross-sectional study
title_short Patient-reported outcomes of esthetics, function and oral hygiene with single dental implants 10–15 years after placement: a cross-sectional study
title_sort patient reported outcomes of esthetics function and oral hygiene with single dental implants 10 15 years after placement a cross sectional study
topic Dental esthetics
patient-reported outcome measurements
peri-implant mucositis
peri-implantitis
single dental implant
url https://medicaljournalssweden.se/actaodontologica/article/view/42724
work_keys_str_mv AT vivecawallinbengtsson patientreportedoutcomesofestheticsfunctionandoralhygienewithsingledentalimplants1015yearsafterplacementacrosssectionalstudy
AT christellindahl patientreportedoutcomesofestheticsfunctionandoralhygienewithsingledentalimplants1015yearsafterplacementacrosssectionalstudy
AT svenscholander patientreportedoutcomesofestheticsfunctionandoralhygienewithsingledentalimplants1015yearsafterplacementacrosssectionalstudy