Systematic review of parameters and methods for the professional assessment of aesthetics in dental implant research

Abstract

Objective: The purpose of the present systematic review was to evaluate the scientific literature regarding the professional assessment of aesthetics in implant dentistry. Material and Methods: An electronic search of Medline database and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials was performed, and complemented by a manual search. Clinical or validation studies (Part 1) and randomized-controlled trials (RCTs) (Part 2) reporting parameters and methods for the assessment of aesthetics were included. The information regarding the assessment of aesthetics was extracted. The methodological quality of RCTs was evaluated by means of the Cochrane Collaboration's Tool for assessing risk of bias. Results: The search yielded 149 and 32 publications in Part 1 and Part 2, respectively. A great diversity with regard to parameters, methods and measurement units used for the assessment of aesthetics was found among the included studies. With respect to time points of assessment there were significant differences between the RCTs. Only two RCTs fulfilled all the criteria of the The Cochrane Collaboration's Tool for assessing risk of bias. Conclusions: Due to the differences of the study designs, parameters and methods used for the assessment of aesthetics, comparisons between studies should be interpreted with caution. Only a limited number of RCTs offer sound evidence on aesthetic outcomes in implant dentistry.

A randomized trial on the aesthetic outcomes of implant‐supported restorations with zirconia or titanium abutments

“…), although as recently reported by Benic et al. , there is a strong need for a consensus on the adequate parameters to assess the aesthetics in implant dentistry. Furthermore, other clinical and radiographical outcomes were assessed together with patient‐centred outcomes.…”

Four‐unit fixed dental prostheses replacing the maxillary incisors supported by two narrow‐diameter implants – a five‐year case series

“…Concerning patient satisfaction, it would be essential to create a white and pink esthetic index for multiunit implant reconstructions that allows the assessment of esthetic outcomes with objective parameters (Benic et al 2012). Such an "objective" analysis, correlated with the "subjective" evaluation of the patient, would help clinicians to identify parameters that make restorations more esthetically pleasing for the patient (Annibali et al 2012).…”

Implant Associated Soft Tissue Defects in the Anterior Maxilla

“…1,52,53 A recent systematic review on the assessment of periimplant esthetics concluded that because of differences between indices and study designs, comparisons between such studies should be interpreted with caution. 54 Recent research on implant esthetics typically reports their findings with the PES or White Esthetic Score/Pink Esthetic Score criteria. 14,[55][56][57] Correlations with studies using CEI criteria are therefore not fully accurate.…”