Premium
Implant soft tissue Dehiscence coverage Esthetic Score (IDES): A pilot within‐ and between‐rater analysis of consistency in objective and subjective scores
Author(s) -
Zucchelli Giovanni,
Barootchi Shayan,
Tavelli Lorenzo,
Stefanini Martina,
Rasperini Giulio,
Wang HomLay
Publication year - 2021
Publication title -
clinical oral implants research
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 2.407
H-Index - 161
eISSN - 1600-0501
pISSN - 0905-7161
DOI - 10.1111/clr.13706
Subject(s) - intraclass correlation , soft tissue , medicine , reliability (semiconductor) , dehiscence , dentistry , inter rater reliability , orthodontics , consistency (knowledge bases) , statistics , reproducibility , mathematics , computer science , surgery , artificial intelligence , power (physics) , physics , rating scale , quantum mechanics
Objectives To introduce an esthetic index for assessing the outcomes of peri‐implant soft tissue dehiscence/deficiency (PSTD) coverage and test its within‐ and between‐reviewer reliability. Materials and Methods Photographs of 51 single PSTDs at baseline and after treatment were provided to four periodontists from three centers. The examiners were asked to rate each case at two timepoints with the Implant soft tissue Dehiscence/deficiency coverage Esthetic Score (IDES) that involved the evaluation of the post‐treatment level of the soft tissue margin, peri‐implant papillae height, mucosa color, and mucosa appearance (summing up to a total score of 10). Variance components analysis was conducted using multilevel regression fit in a Bayesian framework for obtaining uncertainty intervals for fractional variance contributions and intraclass correlation values (ICC) of the IDES, and for each of its four clinical variables. Results Regression models showed reproducible esthetic evaluation among the examiners (inter‐reliability) and negligible intra‐reviewer variability (assessment of the same case at different timepoints). The ICC for the variability in the assessment of the overall IDES was 0.86, and for the individual components ranged from 0.78 to 0.87. Additionally, there was a strong similarity between the raters’ IDES values, and their subjective esthetic response, by the same raters. Conclusion The IDES showed persistent judgment among the 4 reviewers, and only a slight intra‐reviewer variability across timepoints. Within its limitations, this study suggests that the proposed novel score can be a reliable tool for evaluating the esthetic outcomes of PSTD coverage, which can aid in standardization of esthetic assessments following the treatment of a PSTD.