Zirconium implants esthetic evaluation with Pink&White...
1
Topic: Basic research Zirconium implants esthetic evaluation with Pink&White Esthetic Score (PES_WES) Marcello Dolci Zirconium implants esthetic evaluation with Pink&White Esthetic Score (PES_WES) Marcello Dolci Abstract Abstract Background and Aim Background and Aim Methods and Materials Methods and Materials Results Results Conclusions Conclusions References References The aim of this work : is zirconium implants esthetic evaluation with Pink&White Esthetic Score (PES_WES). Materials and methods, results :8 patients were treated with 12 zirconium implants positioned in aesthetics areas. After 10 to 16 months from the prosthetic functionalisation, PES and WES were checked and calculated, with a PES and WES average result (7,5± 1;8±1.3),and a WES/PES result of 15.515. Conclusion: PES and WES <9 and >6 and PES/WES >12 and <18 are considered as a success scores, and our results confirm zirconium implants good aesthetic performances. All ceramic restorations are very popular because of their optimal esthetic and characteristics and considering their properties, all-ceramic dental implants were introduced into dental implantology as an alternative to titanium implants. More recently, zirconia dental implants were introduced. Zirconia presents excellent mechanical properties, good biocompatibility and it is similar to the color of the natural tooth. These favorable characteristics render zirconia dental implants useful in esthetically critical areas of the jaws, considering that the grey color of titanium dental implants might shine through the peri- implant mucosa, especially in case of thin biotypes . The aim of this work is to observe and evaluate aesthetics performances of implant prosthetics rehabilitation with zirconium implants (whiteSKY®, Bredent, Senden Germany) placed in aesthetics areas At the Department of Oral Surgery of Dental Clinic, Fondazione IRCCS Cà Granda Policlinico, University of Milan, from 2007 to 2011, 8 patients were treated with 12 zirconium implants positioned in aesthetics areas. After surgery a temporary restauration was placed and a clinical and radiographic control was effectuated. After 6 months from the prosthetic functionalisation, a radiographic control was effectuated, in association with usual controls (PI,BOP,PPD). The radiographic results were processed with Corel-draw 10, to evaluate marginal loss bone. 6, 24 months after the definitive prosthetic restauration the same clinical and radiographic control were effectuated. Those results were to evaluate esthetic performances, in particular with pink esthetic score (PES) and white esthetic score (WES). To every single data we give a score from 0 (minimum) to 2 (maximum). PES and WES <6 or PES/WES<12 is considered esthetic performance not acceptable, PES and WES<9 and >6 and PES/WES<18 and >12 is an esthetic success, PES and WES >9 or PES/WES>18 is excellent esthetic performance. From 6 months to 24 months after implant insertion, the survival rate was 100%. in our follow up period (6-24 months) any problem was related in implants or in prosthetic restauration, the average PES was 7.5±1 and the average WES was 8±1.3. The result PES/WES was 15.5±1.5, The radiographic measurements of marginal bone levels adjacent to zirconia dental implants showed similar values to those of titanium implants in according to Albrektsson criteria . The peri-implant bone preservation may be associated to high predictibility of surgical protocol, to the excellent characteristics of zirconia (high biocompatibility and low plaque adhesion) to the absence of micro-gap between fixture and abutment since zirconia dental implants are one-piece implants. Our PES and WES measurements are considerated as a success score. 1. Belser UC, Grutter L, Vailati F, Bornstein M, Weber HP and Buser D. Outcome Evaluation of Early Placed Maxillary Anterior Single-Tooth Implants Using Objective Esthetic Criteria: A Cross-Sectional, Retrospective Study in 45 Patients With a 2- to 4-Year Follow-Up Using Pink and White Esthetic Scores. J Periodontol 2009;80:140- 151 2. Fürhauser R, Florescu D, Benesch T, Mailath G, Watzek G. Evaluation of soft tissue around singletooth implant crowns: The pink esthetic score. Clin Oral Implants Res 2005;16:639-644.30. 3. Gehrke P, Degidi M, Lulay-Saad Z, Dhom G. Reproducibility of the implant crown aesthetic index – Rating aesthetics of single-implant crowns and adjacent soft tissues with regard to observer dental specialization. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res. 2008 Jul 23. 4. Meijer HJA, Stellingsma K, Meijndert L, Raghoebar GM. A new index for rating aesthetics of implantsupported single crowns and adjacent soft tissues – The Implant Crown Aesthetic Index. Clin Oral Implants Res 2005;16:645-649. 5. Martin WC, Morton D, Buser D. Diagnostic factors for esthetic risk assessment. In: Buser D, Belser U, Wismeijer D, eds. ITI Treatment Guide, vol. 1: Implant Pink and White Esthetic Scores in Anterior Implants Volume 80 Number 1150 Therapy In The Esthetic Zone – Single-Tooth Replacements. Berlin: Quintessence Publishing; 2006:11-20. PES PES Parameter Absent Incomplete Present Mesial papilla 0 1 2 Distal papilla 0 1 2 Major discrepancy Minor discrepancy No discrepancy Curvature of facial mucosa 0 1 2 Level of facial mucosa 0 1 2 Root convexity/soft tissue color and texture 0 1 2 Maximum total PES score 10 WES WES Major discrepancy Minor discrepancy No discrepancy Tooth form 0 1 2 Tooth volume/outline 0 1 2 Color 0 1 2 Surface texture 0 1 2 Translucency 0 1 2 Maximum total WES score 10 Department of Oral Surgery, Dental Clinic, Fondazione IRCCS Cà Granda Ospedale Maggiore Policlinico, Milan, Italy Patient. M. M., age 62, male PES WES Implant position Mesial papilla Distal papilla Margin curve Tissue colour Margin level Totale PES Tooth form Volume Colour Texture Trans lucenz/ charac teristic Total WES Total PES/ WES 44 2 1 1 2 1 7 2 1 2 2 1 8 15 11 1 1 2 2 1 7 2 2 2 1 2 9 16 21 1 1 2 1 2 7 2 2 2 2 2 10 17 32 1 1 1 2 1 6 1 2 2 2 2 9 15 42 2 1 1 1 1 6 1 2 2 1 1 7 13 21 2 2 1 2 1 8 1 2 2 1 2 7 15 24 1 1 2 2 2 8 2 1 1 1 1 7 15 11 2 2 1 2 2 9 2 2 2 2 1 9 18 21 2 1 2 2 2 9 2 2 2 2 1 9 18 24 2 1 2 1 2 8 1 2 1 1 2 7 15 14 2 2 1 1 1 7 1 2 2 1 1 7 14 35 1 1 2 2 2 8 1 2 1 2 1 7 15 Media 1.58 1.25 1.52 1.66 1.5 7.5 1.5 1.8 1.75 1.5 1.4 8 15.5 Dev.st 0.51 0.45 0.52 0.5 0.52 1 0.52 0.39 0.45 0.52 0.51 1.12 1.5
Transcript of Zirconium implants esthetic evaluation with Pink&White...
Topic: Basic research
Zirconium implants esthetic evaluation with Pink&White Esthetic Score (PES_WES)Marcello Dolci
Zirconium implants esthetic evaluation with Pink&White Esthetic Score (PES_WES)Marcello Dolci
AbstractAbstract
Background and AimBackground and Aim
Methods and MaterialsMethods and Materials
ResultsResults
ConclusionsConclusions
ReferencesReferences
The aim of this work : is zirconium implants esthetic evaluation with Pink&White Esthetic Score (PES_WES).Materials and methods, results :8 patients were treated with 12 zirconium implants positioned in aesthetics areas. After 10 to 16 months from the prosthetic functionalisation, PES and WES were checked and calculated, with a PES and WES average result (7,5± 1;8±1.3),and a WES/PES result of 15.515.Conclusion: PES and WES <9 and >6 and PES/WES >12 and <18 are considered as a success scores, and our results confirm zirconium implants good aesthetic performances.
All ceramic restorations are very popular because of their optimal esthetic and characteristics and considering their properties, all-ceramic dental implants were introduced into dental implantology as an alternative to titanium implants. Morerecently, zirconia dental implants were introduced. Zirconia presents excellent mechanical properties, good biocompatibility and it is similar to the color of the natural tooth. These favorable characteristics render zirconia dental implants useful in esthetically critical areas of the jaws, considering that the grey color of titanium dental implants might shine through the peri-implant mucosa, especially in case of thin biotypes. The aim of this work is to observe and evaluate aesthetics performances of implant prosthetics rehabilitation with zirconium implants (whiteSKY®, Bredent, Senden Germany) placed in aesthetics areas
At the Department of Oral Surgery of Dental Clinic, Fondazione IRCCS Cà Granda Policlinico, University of Milan, from 2007 to 2011, 8 patients were treated with 12 zirconium implants positioned in aesthetics areas. After surgery a temporary restauration was placed and a clinical and radiographic control was effectuated. After 6 months from the prosthetic functionalisation, a radiographic control was effectuated, in association with usual controls (PI,BOP,PPD).The radiographic results were processed with Corel-draw 10, to evaluate marginal loss bone.6, 24 months after the definitive prosthetic restauration the same clinical and radiographic control were effectuated.Those results were to evaluate esthetic performances, in particular with pink esthetic score (PES) and white esthetic score (WES).To every single data we give a score from 0 (minimum) to 2 (maximum).PES and WES <6 or PES/WES<12 is considered esthetic performance not acceptable, PES and WES<9 and >6 and PES/WES<18 and >12 is an esthetic success, PES and WES >9 or PES/WES>18 is excellent esthetic performance.
From 6 months to 24 months after implant insertion, the survival rate was 100%. in our follow up period (6-24 months) any problem was related in implants or in prosthetic restauration, the average PES was 7.5±1 and the average WES was 8±1.3.The result PES/WES was 15.5±1.5,
The radiographic measurements of marginal bone levels adjacent to zirconia dental implants showed similar values to those of titanium implants in according to Albrektsson criteria.
The peri-implant bone preservation may be associated to high predictibility of surgical protocol, to the excellent characteristics of zirconia (high biocompatibility and low plaque adhesion) to the absence of micro-gap between fixture and abutment since zirconia dental implants are one-piece implants. Our PES and WES measurements are considerated as a success score.
1. Belser UC, Grutter L, Vailati F, Bornstein M, Weber HP and Buser D. Outcome Evaluation of Early Placed Maxillary Anterior Single-Tooth Implants Using Objective Esthetic Criteria: A Cross-Sectional, Retrospective Study in 45 Patients With a 2- to 4-Year Follow-Up Using Pink and White Esthetic Scores. J Periodontol 2009;80:140-151
2. Fürhauser R, Florescu D, Benesch T, Mailath G, WatzekG. Evaluation of soft tissue around singletooth implant crowns: The pink esthetic score. Clin Oral Implants Res 2005;16:639-644.30.
3. Gehrke P, Degidi M, Lulay-Saad Z, Dhom G. Reproducibility of the implant crown aesthetic index –Rating aesthetics of single-implant crowns and adjacent soft tissues with regard to observer dental specialization. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res. 2008 Jul 23.
4. Meijer HJA, Stellingsma K, Meijndert L, Raghoebar GM. A new index for rating aesthetics of implantsupported single crowns and adjacent soft tissues – The Implant Crown Aesthetic Index. Clin Oral Implants Res 2005;16:645-649.
5. Martin WC, Morton D, Buser D. Diagnostic factors for esthetic risk assessment. In: Buser D, Belser U, Wismeijer D, eds. ITI Treatment Guide, vol. 1: Implant Pink and White Esthetic Scores in Anterior Implants Volume 80 Number 1150 Therapy In The Esthetic Zone –Single-Tooth Replacements. Berlin: Quintessence Publishing; 2006:11-20.
PESPES
Parameter Absent Incomplete Present
Mesial papilla 0 1 2
Distal papilla 0 1 2
Major discrepancy Minor discrepancy No discrepancy
Curvature of facial mucosa 0 1 2
Level of facial mucosa 0 1 2
Root convexity/soft tissue color and texture 0 1 2
Maximum total PES score 10
WESWES
Major discrepancy Minor discrepancy No discrepancy
Tooth form 0 1 2
Tooth volume/outline 0 1 2
Color 0 1 2
Surface texture 0 1 2
Translucency 0 1 2
Maximum total WES score 10
Department of Oral Surgery, Dental Clinic, Fondazione IRCCS Cà Granda Ospedale Maggiore Policlinico, Milan, Italy
Patient. M. M., age 62, male
PES WES
Implantposition
Mesial papilla
Distalpapilla
Margincurve
Tissuecolour
Marginlevel
Totale PES
Toothform Volume Colour Texture
Translucenz/ characteristic
Total WES
Total PES/WES
44 2 1 1 2 1 7 2 1 2 2 1 8 1511 1 1 2 2 1 7 2 2 2 1 2 9 1621 1 1 2 1 2 7 2 2 2 2 2 10 1732 1 1 1 2 1 6 1 2 2 2 2 9 1542 2 1 1 1 1 6 1 2 2 1 1 7 1321 2 2 1 2 1 8 1 2 2 1 2 7 1524 1 1 2 2 2 8 2 1 1 1 1 7 1511 2 2 1 2 2 9 2 2 2 2 1 9 1821 2 1 2 2 2 9 2 2 2 2 1 9 1824 2 1 2 1 2 8 1 2 1 1 2 7 1514 2 2 1 1 1 7 1 2 2 1 1 7 1435 1 1 2 2 2 8 1 2 1 2 1 7 15Media 1.58 1.25 1.52 1.66 1.5 7.5 1.5 1.8 1.75 1.5 1.4 8 15.5Dev.st 0.51 0.45 0.52 0.5 0.52 1 0.52 0.39 0.45 0.52 0.51 1.12 1.5
