Comprehensive Esthetic Evaluation of Maxillary Central Incisor  Single-Tooth Implant: Utilizing Visual Analogue Scale and Assessing Alignment with PES/WES Criteria by Dental Specialists

Faezeh  Atri; Mehran  Sarabi; Mohammad Mahdi Abbasnia  Tehrani; Masoumeh  Eftekhar; Nina  Rouzmeh

doi:10.18502/jcr.v12i1.19671

Faezeh Atri Department of Prosthodontics, School of Dentistry, Tehran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran.
Mehran Sarabi Department of Civil Engineering, Science and Research Branch, Islamic Azad University, Tehran, Iran.
Mohammad Mahdi Abbasnia Tehrani School of Dentistry, Tehran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran.
Masoumeh Eftekhar Department of Periodontology, Boston University, Henry Goldman School of Dental Medicine, Boston, MA,USA.
Nina Rouzmeh DDS, MSc, Periodontist and Implantologist, Private Practice, Tehran, Iran.

DOI: https://doi.org/10.18502/jcr.v12i1.19671

Keywords: White esthetic score; Pink esthetic score; Visual analog scales; Implant-supported single crown.

Abstract

Introduction: Single-tooth implants are a common dental treatment, with a growing emphasis on esthetic out-comes due to their high survival and success rates, especially in esthetic areas. This study assessed consensus among specialists using the Visual Analogue Scale (VAS), focusing on the objective criteria of Pink Esthetic Score (PES) and White Esthetic Score (WES).

Materials and Methods: This cross-sectional study evaluated the esthetic aspects of a maxillary central single-tooth implant using VAS, involving 18 prosthodontists, 11 restorative specialists, 12 periodontists, and 11 Oral Maxillofacial Surgeons. A photo of an ideally contoured implant-supported restoration, taken three months post-delivery, underwent alterations to create 15 variations based on PES/WES criteria. Specialists provided VAS scores (0 to 10) for restoration esthetics and soft tissue surrounding the implant. Scores were compared with PES/WES, and Pearson correlation coefficients determined relationships. The significance level of the p-value is 0.05.

Results: Prosthodontists showed a strong correlation with PES (0.86±0.09), WES (0.88±0.07), and PES/WES (0.88±0.08). Restorative specialists exhibited correlations of PES (0.73±0.25), WES (0.73±0.29), and PES/WES (0.74±0.28). Periodontists demonstrated correlations with PES (0.87±0.07), WES (0.84±0.08), and the ratio of PES to WES (0.86±0.07). OMF surgeons had correla-tions of PES (0.83±0.11), WES (0.85±0.09), and PES/WES (0.85±0.1). Inter-group correlations did not significantly differ (P Value>0.05).

Conclusion: Robust correlations exist among specialists in evaluating implant esthetics using VAS and PES/WES, with restorative and surgical specialists displaying a stricter approach.