Premium
Usefulness of the Aesthetic Result as a Success Criterion for Implant Therapy: A Review
Author(s) -
Annibali Susanna,
Bignozzi Isabella,
La Monaca Gerardo,
Cristalli Maria Paola
Publication year - 2012
Publication title -
clinical implant dentistry and related research
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 1.338
H-Index - 85
eISSN - 1708-8208
pISSN - 1523-0899
DOI - 10.1111/j.1708-8208.2009.00234.x
Subject(s) - medicine , periodontology , dentistry , rehabilitation , clinical trial , medline , dental implant , implant , randomized controlled trial , dental prosthesis , orthodontics , physical therapy , surgery , pathology , political science , law
Purpose: The purpose of this study was to review the reported evaluation criteria of the aesthetic result in oral implant rehabilitation. Materials and Methods: A literature search of MEDLINE, the Cochrane Collaboration, and EMBASE was performed to retrieve studies published between January 1990 and December 2008 using the following key words: “dental implants,”“clinical trial,” and “aesthetic index” (and their synonyms). A manual search of the literature published in the same period was also carried out using the following publications: Clinical Oral Implant Research , The International Journal of Oral and Maxillofacial Implants , and The International Journal of Periodontics and Restorative Dentistry . The inclusion criteria of the published studies were the following: human clinical trial, oral implant rehabilitation, at least 10 implants, at least 6 months of follow‐up from insertion of the prosthesis, and evaluation of the aesthetic result by means of an index. Results: The literature search revealed 650 relevant bibliographic references, of which 89 were selected for further analysis. A final total of 29 articles fulfilled the inclusion criteria; these included 10 retrospective case series, 11 prospective case series, 1 retrospective controlled clinical trial, 1 prospective controlled clinical trial, and 6 randomized controlled clinical trials. In general, evaluations of aesthetic results appear only in the more recent studies and refer mostly to implant rehabilitation in the maxillary anterior zone; the index used, in most cases, was the Papilla Index of Jemt. Conclusions: Although there appears to be a growing interest in aesthetics in dental implantology, there are as yet no universally accepted evaluation criteria of the aesthetic result. Therefore, further research is necessary to establish a common, complete, and reproducible index for the evaluation of aesthetic outcome that can add in the success criteria for implant therapy in the maxillary and mandibular anterior areas.