Comparison of Single-Tooth Dental Implants with Contralateral Teeth in Terms of Clinical, Radiographic, Aesthetic and Patient Satisfaction

Yıl 2023, , 179 - 190, 19.10.2023

Merve Küçükoglu Çolak , Murat İnanç Cengiz

https://doi.org/10.58711/turkishjdentres.vi.1280078

Öz

Aim: The aim of this study is to compare dental implants
applied in single tooth deficiencies in the maxilla anterior
region with contralateral teeth clinically, radiographically,
aesthetically and evaluate patient satisfaction
Materials and Methods: In our study, 40 patients with
contralateral teeth who underwent dental implant application
in a single missing tooth between 2010-2020 were included.
During the routine controls of the patients, peri-implant and
periodontal probing depth (PD), plaque index (PI) and gingival
index (GI), the presence of bleeding (BOP) on probing, and
the amount of gingival recession (GR) were recorded. Patient
satisfaction and aesthetic evaluation were performed by asking
each patient questions on the Visual Analog Scale (VAS).
The Complex aesthetic index (CEİ) was used to evaluate the
aesthetics of the implant-supported restoration.
Results: There was no significant difference in clinical
parameters tooth and implant regions. Statistically significant
excess probing depth was detected in the implant area. The
amount of keratinized gingiva was statistically significantly
higher in the tooth region.. In the evaluation of implant
restorations with CEİ, it was mostly observed as risky but
clinically acceptable. The mean satisfaction score was
8.44±1.11. It was observed that the majority of the patients had
a significantly higher treatment satisfaction score.
Conclusion: There was no significant difference in
periodonal indices between both region. There are differences
in the two regions in terms of the amount of keratinized gingiva
and the probing depth of the pocket. Aesthetically, implantsupported
prostheses are acceptable. Patients are satisfied with
the procedure and recommend it.

Anahtar Kelimeler

Dental Implant;, Aesthetics, KEI, Patient Satisfaction;, VAS

Tek Diş İmplantların Klinik, Radyografik, Estetik ve Hasta Memnuniyeti Açısından Kontralateral Dişler ile Karşılaştırılması

Öz

Amaç: Çalışmamızın amacı; maksilla anterior bölge tek
diş eksikliklerinde uygulanan dental implantları kontralateral
dişlerle klinik, radyografik ve estetik olarak karşılaştırmak ve
hasta memnuniyetini değerlendirmektedir.
Gereç ve Yöntem: Çalışmamıza fakültemizde 2010-2020
yılları arasında tek diş eksikliğinde dental implant uygulaması
yapılmış ve kontralateral dişi mevcut olan 40 hasta dahil
edilmiştir. Hastaların rutin kontrolleri sırasında peri-implant
ve periodontal sondlama derinliği (PD), plak indeksi (PI)
ve gingival indeks (GI) değerleri, sondlamada kanama (SK)
varlığı, dişeti çekilmesi (DÇ) miktarı kaydedilmiştir. Her
hastaya görsel analog skala (VAS, Visual Analog Scale)
soruları yönelterek hasta memnuniyeti ve estetik değerlendirme
gerçekleştirilmiştir. İmplant destekli restorasyonun estetiğini
değerlendirmek içinde de Komplex estetik indeks (KEİ)
kullanılmıştır.
Bulgular: Diş ve implant bölgelerinde klinik parametreler
açısından anlamlı fark görülmemiştir. İmplant bölgesinde
istatiksel olarak anlamlı olarak fazla sondalama derinliği
tespit edilmiştir. Keratinize diş eti miktarı ise diş bölgesinde
istatiksel olarak anlamlı derecede daha fazla olduğu
gözlemlenmiştir. İmplant üstü restorasyonların KEİ ile
değerlendirilmesinde ise çoğunlukla riskli ama klinik olarak
kabul edilebilir olarak gözlenmiştir. Hastaların ortalama
memnuniyet skoru 8,44±1.11’dir. Hastaların büyük çoğunluğu
tedaviden memnuniyet skorunun anlamlı olarak yüksek olduğu
görülmüştür.
Sonuç: İmplant ve diş bölgesi arasında periodonal
indekslerde anlamlı farklılık bulunamıştır. Keratinize diş eti
miktarı ve cep derinliği açısından iki bölgede farklılıklar
mevcuttur. Estetik olarak implant üstü protezler kabul edilebilir
düzeydedir. Hastalar uygulanan tedaviden memnun ve tedaviyi
tavsiye etmektedirler.

Anahtar Kelimeler

Dental İmplant, estetik, KEİ, hasta memnuniyeti, VAS

Kaynakça

• Andersson B. Implants for single-tooth replacement. A clinical and experimental study on the Branemark CeraOne System. Swed Dent J Suppl. 1995;108:1-41.
• Berglundh T, Lindhe J, Jonsson K, Ericsson I. The topography of the vascular systems in the periodontal and peri-implant tissues in the dog. J Clin Periodontol. 1994;21(3):189-93.
• Buser D, Weber HP, Donath K, Fiorellini JP, Paquette DW, Williams RC. Soft tissue reactions to non-submerged unloaded titanium implants in beagle dogs. J Periodontol. 1992;63(3):225-35.
• Jovanovic SA. Peri-implant tissue response to pathological insults. Adv Dent Res. 1999;13:82-6.
• Jemt T. Regeneration of gingival papillae after singleimplant treatment. Int J Periodontics Restorative Dent. 1997;17(4):326-33.
• 6. Furhauser R, Florescu D, Benesch T, Haas R, Mailath G, Watzek G. Evaluation of soft tissue around single-tooth implant crowns: the pink esthetic score. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2005;16(6):639-44.
• Meijer HJ, Stellingsma K, Meijndert L, Raghoebar GM. A new index for rating aesthetics of implant-supported single crowns and adjacent soft tissues--the Implant Crown Aesthetic Index. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2005;16(6):645- 9.
• Belser UC, Grutter L, Vailati F, Bornstein MM, Weber HP, 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(1):140-51.
• Bianchi AE, Sanfilippo F. Single-tooth replacement by immediate implant and connective tissue graft: a 1-9-year clinical evaluation. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2004;15(3):269- 77.
• Juodzbalys G, Wang HL. Esthetic index for anterior maxillary implant-supported restorations. J Periodontol. 2010;81(1):34-42.
• Slade GD. Oral health-related quality of life is important for patients, but what about populations? Community Dent Oral Epidemiol. 2012;40 Suppl 2(0 2):39-43.
• Brennan M, Houston F, O’Sullivan M, O’Connell B. Patient satisfaction and oral health-related quality of life outcomes of implant overdentures and fixed complete dentures. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2010;25(4):791-800.
• Buser D, Martin W, Belser UC. Optimizing esthetics for implant restorations in the anterior maxilla: anatomic and surgical considerations. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2004;19 Suppl:43-61.
• Smith DE, Zarb GA. Criteria for success of osseointegrated endosseous implants. J Prosthet Dent. 1989;62(5):567-72.
• Sischo L, Broder HL. Oral health-related quality of life: what, why, how, and future implications. J Dent Res. 2011;90(11):1264-70.
• Lütfioğlu M, Sakallıoğlu U, Sert S, Sakallıoğlu EE, Ceylan G. Reliability of periodontal diagnostic methods in the assessment of periimplant health: A comparison of the correlations amongst some clinical parameters. EÜ Dişhek Fak Derg. 2010;31(2):95-101.
• Karoussis IK, Muller S, Salvi GE, Heitz-Mayfield LJ, Bragger U, Lang NP. Association between periodontal and peri-implant conditions: a 10-year prospective study. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2004;15(1):1-7.
• Machtei EE, Oved-Peleg E, Peled M. Comparison of clinical, radiographic and immunological parameters of teeth and different dental implant platforms. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2006;17(6):658-65.
• Pontoriero R, Tonelli MP, Carnevale G, Mombelli A, Nyman SR, Lang NP. Experimentally induced peri-implant mucositis. A clinical study in humans. Clin Oral Implants Res. 1994;5(4):254-9.
• Ueno D, Nagano T, Watanabe T, Shirakawa S, Yashima A, Gomi K. Effect of the Keratinized Mucosa Width on the Health Status of Periimplant and Contralateral Periodontal Tissues: A Cross-sectional Study. Implant Dent. 2016;25(6):796-801.
• Toljanic JA, Ward CB, Gewerth ME, Banakis ML. A Longitudinal Clinical Comparison Plaque-Induced Inflammation Between Gingival and Peri-Implant Soft Tissues in the Maxilla. J Periodontol. 2001;72(9):1139-45.
• Demirel K, Dişçi R, Meriç H. Periodontal Yikim Görülmeyen Bölgelerde Gingival İndeks Ve Sondalamada Kanama Değerlendirmelerinin İlişkisi The Relationship Of Bleeding On Probing And Gingival Index At Sites Without Periodontal Breakdown. J Istanb Univ Fac Dent. 1996;30(1):12-6.
• Ivanovski S, Lee R. Comparison of peri-implant and periodontal marginal soft tissues in health and disease. Periodontol 2000. 2018;76(1):116-30.
• Puchades-Roman L, Palmer RM, Palmer PJ, Howe LC, Ide M, Wilson RF. A clinical, radiographic, and microbiologic comparison of Astra Tech and Branemark single tooth implants. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res. 2000;2(2):78-84.
• Chang M, Wennstrom JL, Odman P, Andersson B. Implant supported single-tooth replacements compared to contralateral natural teeth. Crown and soft tissue dimensions. Clin Oral Implants Res. 1999;10(3):185-94.
• Hof M, Umar N, Budas N, Seemann R, Pommer B, Zechner W. Evaluation of implant esthetics using eight objective indices-Comparative analysis of reliability and validity. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2018;29(7):697-706.
• Juodzbalys G, Wang HL. Soft and hard tissue assessment of immediate implant placement: a case series. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2007;18(2):237-43.
• Buser D, Halbritter S, Hart C, Bornstein MM, Grutter L, Chappuis V, et al. Early implant placement with simultaneous guided bone regeneration following singletooth extraction in the esthetic zone: 12-month results of a prospective study with 20 consecutive patients. J Periodontol. 2009;80(1):152-62.
• Cosyn J, Eghbali A, De Bruyn H, Dierens M, De Rouck T. Single implant treatment in healing versus healed sites of the anterior maxilla: an aesthetic evaluation. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res. 2012;14(4):517-26.
• Topçu AO, Yamalik N, Güncü GN, Tözüm TF, El H, Uysal S, et al. Implant-Site Related and Patient-Based Factors With the Potential to Impact Patients’ Satisfaction, Quality of Life Measures and Perceptions Toward Dental Implant Treatment. Implant Dentistry. 2017;26(4):581-91.
• Vermylen K, Collaert B, Linden U, Bjorn AL, De Bruyn H. Patient satisfaction and quality of single-tooth restorations. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2003;14(1):119-24.
• Pjetursson BE, Karoussis I, Burgin W, Bragger U, Lang NP. Patients’ satisfaction following implant therapy. A 10-year prospective cohort study. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2005;16(2):185-93.
• Ergun S, Çekici A, Saruhanoğlu A, Kazancioğlu Do, Atilla Uzman D, Gülsüm A, Et Al. Dental İmplantlar İle Rehabilite Edilmiş Hastalarin Memnuniyet Derecelerinin Değerlendirilmesi. J Dent Fac Ataturk Univ. 2009;2009(3):181-6.
• Erdil D, Yildiz H, Bağiş N. İmplant Tedavisinde Hasta Memnuniyetinin Değerlendirilmesi. Turkiye Klinikleri J Dental Sci. 2019;25(1):43-9.
• Korenori A, Koji K, Yuki T, Murata T, Sachiko TM, Shunsuke B. Cost-effectiveness of molar single-implant versus fixed dental prosthesis. BMC Oral Health. 2018;18(1):141.
• Walton TR, Layton DM. Satisfaction and Patient-Related Outcomes in 128 Patients with Single Implant Crowns In Situ for up to 14 Years. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2017;32(3):667-74.
• Dong H, Zhou N, Liu H, Huang H, Yang G, Chen L, et al. Satisfaction analysis of patients with single implant treatments based on a questionnaire survey. Patient Prefer Adherence. 2019;13:695-704.
• Meijndert L, Meijer HJ, Stellingsma K, Stegenga B, Raghoebar GM. Evaluation of aesthetics of implantsupported single-tooth replacements using different bone augmentation procedures: a prospective randomized clinical study. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2007;18(6):715-9.
• Hartog L, Meijer HJ, Santing HJ, Vissink A, Raghoebar GM. Patient satisfaction with single-tooth implant therapy in the esthetic zone. Int J Prosthodont. 2014;27(3):226-8.
• Stefanini M, Felice P, Mazzotti C, Mounssif I, Marzadori M, Zucchelli G. Esthetic evaluation and patient-centered outcomes in single-tooth implant rehabilitation in the esthetic area. Periodontol 2000. 2018;77(1):150-64.
• Al-Dosari A, Al-Rowis R, Moslem F, Alshehri F, Ballo AM. Esthetic outcome for maxillary anterior single implants assessed by different dental specialists. J Adv Prosthodont. 2016;8(5):345-53.
• Carrillo de Albornoz A, Vignoletti F, Ferrantino L, Cardenas E, De Sanctis M, Sanz M. A randomized trial on the aesthetic outcomes of implant-supported restorations with zirconia or titanium abutments. J Clin Periodontol. 2014;41(12):1161-9.
• Chang M, Odman PA, Wennstrom JL, Andersson B. Esthetic outcome of implant-supported single-tooth replacements assessed by the patient and by prosthodontists. Int J Prosthodont. 1999;12(4):335-41.
• Fava J, Lin M, Zahran M, Jokstad A. Single implantsupported crowns in the aesthetic zone: patient satisfaction with aesthetic appearance compared with appraisals by laypeople and dentists. Clin Oral Implants Res.
• Bonde MJ, Stokholm R, Schou S, Isidor F. Patient satisfaction and aesthetic outcome of implant-supported single-tooth replacements performed by dental students: a retrospective evaluation 8 to 12 years after treatment. Eur J Oral Implantol. 2013;6(4):387-95.
• Cho HL, Lee JK, Um HS, Chang BS. Esthetic evaluation of maxillary single-tooth implants in the esthetic zone. J Periodontal Implant Sci. 2010;40(4):188-93.
• Cosyn J, Eghbali A, Hanselaer L, De Rouck T, Wyn I, Sabzevar MM, et al. Four modalities of single implant treatment in the anterior maxilla: a clinical, radiographic, and aesthetic evaluation. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res. 2013;15(4):517-30.
• Den Hartog L, Raghoebar GM, Slater JJ, Stellingsma K, Vissink A, Meijer HJ. Single-tooth implants with different neck designs: a randomized clinical trial evaluating the aesthetic outcome. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res. 2013;15(3):311-21.