OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to assess the following PIO question: In adult patients treated with an indication for single tooth extraction in the maxillary esthetic zone (15-25), what is the influence of an immediate implant placement and immediate loading protocol on the clinical performance (primary aim) and esthetic outcomes (secondary aim) focusing on investigations published after 2010.
METHODS: An electronic search in Medline (PubMed), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and EMBASE databases up to April 2022 was performed to identify clinical studies investigating the outcome of single implants subjected to immediate placement with immediate restoration/loading (Type 1A).
RESULTS: Sixty-three studies (10 randomized controlled trials, 28 prospective and 25 retrospective cohort studies) were included with a follow-up ranging from 12 to 96 months. One thousand nine hundred sixty-one implants reported survival rates of 99.2 (98.6-99.5) % at 1 year, 97.5 (95.9-98.4) % after 3 years, and 95.8 (93.3-97.4) % after 5 years; 1064 immediately loaded restorations presented survival rates of 98.9 (97.8-99.5) % after 1 year, 96.8 (93.6-98.4) % after 2 years, and 94.8 (89.6-97.4) % after 5 years. Comparing baseline to 12-month data using the Hedges\' g effect size (95% CI), papilla height presented an overall effect size of -0.71 (-1.25, -0.1) mm, midfacial recession change of -0.15 (-0.66, 0.36) mm, and a 0.82 (0.37, 1.28) gain in PES.
CONCLUSIONS: Immediate implant placement and immediate loading can be considered a predictable and safe treatment option for single maxillary anterior restorations with adequate survival rates and favorable esthetics outcomes for up to 5 years.

A goal of modern dentistry is to make an esthetic outcome as one of the major modalities in dental treatment. In recent years, more emphasis has been given to esthetic parameters, especially in the anterior regions. The aim of this study was to evaluate the presence of change in pink and white esthetics scores after giving crowns in a single tooth. Subjects for this retrospective study were chosen by randomization from June 2019 to May 2020. A total of 120 subjects were selected which were equally divided with respect to age and gender. The analysis was done with a photographic assessment. The study test was done using paired t-test, and the correlation was evaluated using the Chi-square test. In this study, we observed that there is an increase in pink and white esthetic scores (WES) after the prosthesis is delivered. There was a clinical and statistically significant difference seen with the WES and total score, whereas only clinical but no statistical difference was seen with the pink esthetic score. After giving crowns, there is an increase in overall esthetic score. It is important to have certain standardized indices to score esthetics by which the overall esthetic outcomes can be improved. One such popular index is the pink and white esthetic index, which scores the soft and hard tissue.

BACKGROUND: Many efforts have been made recently to arrange a newer, more hydrophilic and more osteoconductive implant surface. One of the possible options in this matter is modification with hydroxyl ion.
METHODS: Forty implants with the diameters 3.5 and 4.0 mm were inserted as a single missing tooth restoration protocol in the frontal aspect of the maxilla. All implants were loaded early in a 4 week period. Prior to and during the surgery, the following indices were considered: height of keratinized tissue, the thickness of soft tissue, and the initial level of bone tissue. After 12 months, the implant and the tissues in its direct vicinity were evaluated once more with the following indices: marginal bone loss (MBL), height of keratinized tissue (HKT), probing pocket depth (PPD), pink and white aesthetics scores (PES, WES), as well as pain sensations combined with the procedure (VAS). All results were related to the diameter of the implant and thickness of periodontal biotype.
RESULTS: High aesthetic outcomes were reported regardless of soft tissue thickness and implant diameter. The VAS score was higher for the 4.0 implant group, and the thickness of soft tissue had no influence on VAS. In case of implantation in thin or soft tissue, higher MBL levels were reported (0.26 mm), while in case of a thick phenotype, MBL was 0.06 mm.
CONCLUSIONS: Hydrophilic surface implants can be used for a protocol of early functional occlusal loading. The initial thickness of soft tissue does not influence aesthetic outcomes and does not raise pain perception, although it may elevate crestal bone resorption.

Single tooth implant restorations in the aesthetic area are a demanding challenge. If a complete osseointegration is mandatory, the final result has to result in a higher standard of biomimetic and soft tissue health among natural teeth. This outcome is traditionally pursued by cementing crowns over individualized abutments. However, in recent years, the need for controlling peri-implant health and the preference towards a retrievable solution has led to an increase in screw-retained crowns, which is not always applicable when the implant axis is not ideal. In the aesthetic area, the use of a novel technical solution represented by the angled screw channel (ASC) of the abutment has been proposed in order to match the advantages of the screwed solution with the aesthetic demands. The aim of this study was to compare ASC crowns to cemented crowns (CC) in single implant restorations using the white esthetic score (WES) and pink esthetic score (PES) at the crown delivery and at a follow-up of a minimum of 2 years. Peri-implant health and marginal bone loss (MBL) were also evaluated. The mean follow-up was 44.3 months, with a mean MBL of 0.22 mm in the ASC group and 0.29 mm in the CC group. The total WES/PES score was 16.6 for ASC, compared with 17.3 for CC at baseline, and 16.2 and 17.1, respectively, at follow-up. Both of the groups reached a high WES/PES, and this was maintained over time, without signs of peri-implant diseases or bone loss, regardless of the choice of connection. In conclusion, ASC can be adopted in cases where the implant axis is not ideal, with aesthetic and functional results that are comparable to implants restored by cemented crowns.

OBJECTIVE: To study the accuracy of partially guided and fully guided templates applied to implant surgery of anterior teeth.
METHODS: Sixty patients who were scheduled to receive dental implant treatment in the anterior region were enrolled and randomly assigned to one of the following study groups (n = 20 each): routine implant-supported restoration treatment (control group, 30 implants), implant-supported restoration treatment using a partially guided template (test group 1, 36 implants), and implant-supported restoration treatment using a fully guided template (test group 2, 33 implants). The depth of implant was controlled for fully guided template. After implantation, planned implants and placed implants were superimposed using digital software, and the deviations (angular, coronal, apical, depth) were analyzed. Esthetic parameters were assessed at baseline, 6 months, and 1 year after the final restoration. Pink esthetic score (PES) and white esthetic score (WES) were respectively used to evaluate the soft tissue and restoration esthetic outcome. Each parameter of PES and WES is assessed with a 0-1-2 score with 2 being the best and 0 being the worst score.
RESULTS: There were significant differences in all of the deviation parameters between the control group, test group 1, and test group 2 (p < 0.001). Mean angular, coronal, apical and depth deviations were all the highest in the control group (6.61 ± 1.09°, 1.05 ± 0.17 mm, 1.36 ± 0.13 mm, and 1.02 ± 0.13 mm, respectively), and lowest in test group 2 (2.05 ± 0.45°, 0.39 ± 0.12 mm, 0.28 ± 0.09 mm, and 0.24 ± 0.06 mm, respectively). At 1 year after the final restoration, the analysis revealed mean PES values of 7.09 ± 0.56 (control group), 8.39 ± 0.54 (test group 1), and 9.04 ± 0.35 (test group 2). The WES values were 7.24 ± 0.54 (control group), 8.47 ± 0.44 (test group 1), and 8.97 ± 0.38 (test group 2). At all examinations, the mean PES and WES values were both the highest in test group 2 and lowest in the control group. The PES and WES values recorded in the control group at baseline, 6 months, and 1 year after final restoration were significantly lower than those in test groups (p < 0.001). Moreover, the PES and WES values recorded in the test group 1 at baseline, 6 months, and 1 year after final restoration were significantly lower than those in test group 2 (p < 0.05).
CONCLUSIONS: Digital surgical guides can improve the accuracy of the three-dimensional position of implants in the maxillary esthetic zone, the fully guided template has higher precision than that of the partially guided template, and plays an important role in obtaining the ideal esthetic outcome for maxillary anterior teeth.

OBJECTIVE: To study the precision of digital guide plates applied to the implant surgery of anterior teeth.
METHODS: Fifty patients scheduled to receive implant restoration treatment in anterior teeth were enrolled in this study and divided into two groups (n=25, each group): those who were given routine implant restoration treatment (control group, 45 implants) and those who received implant restoration treatment using a digital guide plate (test group, 51 implants). After implantation, planned and placed implants were superimposed using digital software, and deviations (corona, apex, depth, degree) were analyzed. Esthetic parameters were assessed at 1 week (baseline), 6 month, and 1 year post final restoration. Pink esthetic (PES) and white esthetic (WES) scores were respectively used to evaluate the soft tissue and restoration esthetic outcome.
RESULTS: The deviation parameters in the test group were significantly lower than those in the control group (P<0.05). PES and WES values recorded for the control group at 1 week, 6 month, and 1 year post final restoration were significantly lower than those in the test group (P<0.05).
CONCLUSIONS: The digital guide plate can improve the accuracy of the three-dimensional position of implants in the maxillary esthetic zone. As such, this device may play an important role in obtaining the ideal aesthetic effects of maxillary anterior teeth.
目的 研究数字化导板应用于前牙美学区种植修复的精确度。方法 选择50例需接受上前牙种植修复的患者为研究对象，随机分为2组，每组25例，分别实施常规种植修复（对照组，45枚种植体）和数字化导板辅助种植修复（试验组，51枚种植体），术后测量2组植入体术前虚拟设计位置与实际植入位置的颈部距离、根尖部距离、深度和角度偏差。在全瓷冠修复完成后1周（基线）、6个月和1年，观察2组患者术后种植体的临床修复疗效，采用红白美学评分[包括红美学分数（PES）和白美学分数（WES）]评价软组织及牙冠修复的美学效果。结果 50例患者的96颗种植体术后均取得了良好的骨结合。试验组种植体植入位置的各项偏差均小于对照组（P<0.05）；修复完成后1周、6个月和1年，试验组的PES及WES均高于对照组（P<0.05）。结论 数字化导板辅助种植修复技术可以提高种植体三维位置的准确性和前牙美学区的修复效果。.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this intrasubject clinical study was to measure and compare prosthodontic and patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) in the fabrication of implant-supported, all-ceramic single crowns with a full digital workflow and a conventional workflow.
METHODS: Thirty-one patients were subjected to first a digital (test group) and then a conventional impression (control group) at the same visit. From the intraoral optical scanner (IOS), a screw-retained, monolithic crown was delivered according to a complete digital workflow (no cast), whereas a veneered crown on a zirconia (Zi) frame was provided as a control treatment. Both crowns were assessed during the clinical stages of try-in. Prosthodontic outcomes (contact points, occlusion, PROMs, and esthetic results using the white esthetic score [WES]) were assessed.
RESULTS: Occlusion and interproximal contacts showed comparable results for the two workflows (p = 0.37 and p = 0.36, respectively), whereas the global WES was significantly higher (p < 0.0001) in the control group. Patient satisfaction scores, using visual analog scales (VAS), were significantly better for IOS than for conventional impressions (p = 0.0098). On the contrary, patients\' perception of the esthetic outcomes showed significantly higher value (p < 0.0001) in the control group.
CONCLUSIONS: Both workflows allowed the delivery of ceramic crowns within two appointments. The clinical fit was acceptable in both groups. A better esthetic outcome, in both patients\' and clinicians\' opinions, was found in the control group. PROMs showed higher satisfaction with the IOS.

OBJECTIVE: To analyze patients\' perception of implant therapy in partial edentulism, after 5 years with implant-supported reconstructions.
METHODS: Patients who received dental implants at the National Dental Centre, Singapore 3-9 years earlier (mean: 5.2 years) were invited to participate in the study. Responders were examined clinically, and asked to answer a questionnaire with 13 statements.
RESULTS: Of the 880 patients, 206 patients, with 329 implants, agreed to participate. Of the implants, 82% supported single crowns, while 18% were reconstructed with splinted crowns or fixed dental prostheses. Function and chewing comfort yielded high patient satisfaction. Comparing chewing comfort for teeth and implants, respectively, 51% perceived no difference between the two. Patients were largely satisfied with the phonetic function and esthetic outcome. Only two in three patients were able to cleanse the implant reconstruction well, and majority of the patients reported no difference comparing the time taken to clean implants and teeth. Patients were generally unsure if the tissues around their implants or teeth bled more. Pertaining to expectations, most patients were satisfied with the treatment, and majority were willing to undergo the same treatment again. Most patients would recommend such treatment to friends, if indicated. Only slightly over one-third of the patients felt certain that the cost of the treatment was justified.
CONCLUSIONS: The large majority was satisfied with the functional outcomes of implant treatment. However, the patients had a less than ideal understanding of gingival health around teeth and implants. Patients were less discerning than clinicians in the assessment of esthetic outcomes.

The purpose of this study was to evaluate the esthetic outcome of single-tooth locking taper connection implants placed in the anterior maxilla following a postextractive nonfunctional loading protocol. This preliminary clinical study involving 16 patients evaluated the results of 21 implants placed in areas with high esthetic value. For each implant the pink esthetic score, white esthetic score, cumulative survival rate, and health status of peri-implant tissues were evaluated. The cumulative survival rate was 100% 2 years after prosthetic loading, and the mean total pink esthetic score/white esthetic score was 16.9 ± 1.14 on a maximum value of 20. There was excellent plaque control in all patients, and inflammation indices were within the norm. Within the limits of this study, this immediate nonfunctional loading protocol seems to be a successful procedure esthetically and for the maintenance of peri-implant soft tissues.

OBJECTIVE: To compare five different implant treatment protocols in the anterior maxilla, including immediate, early, and delayed implant placement, as well as implant placement in conjunction with simultaneous guided bone regeneration and implant placement 3 months following horizontal autologous bone block grafting.
METHODS: Aesthetic indices used included the Pink Esthetic Score (PES), Papilla Index (PI), Subjective Esthetic Score (SES), and White Esthetic Score (WES). Subjective evaluation of implant aesthetics was performed using a visual analogue scale (VAS). The VAS consisted of a 10 cm-long line representing the degree of discontent (0%) or satisfaction (100%).
RESULTS: A total of 153 implants in 153 patients (80 women, 73 men) were evaluated after a mean follow-up of 4.5 ± 2.9 years. Mean peri-implant bone loss was 1.6 ± 0.9 mm and not affected by treatment protocol, time after implant placement, or crown length. Papilla presence, by contrast, differed significantly between the protocols: Papilla formation was more pronounced following delayed and immediate implant placement. No statistical significance was found among treatment modalities with regard to PES, SES, or WES. Longer crowns were associated with lower PES and PI ratings and correlated with greater midfacial recession. SES was also influenced by time after implant placement and keratinized mucosa. Patient satisfaction differed significantly among treatment protocols, favoring immediate implant placement. Agreement between objective and subjective aesthetic ratings was low.
CONCLUSIONS: The present study suggests that comparable clinical, radiological, and aesthetic results can be achieved with all treatment protocols. Gingival recession, however, seems to occur in the long term irrespective of the technique used.