Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33708255›Full record

ReviewInternational journal of dentistry2021

Aesthetic Parameters and Patient-Perspective Assessment Tools for Maxillary Anterior Single Implants.

Kelvin I Afrashtehfar, Mansour K A Assery, S Ross Bryant

Open access · goldAbstract readReview
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in International journal of dentistry, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 19 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
19citing papers in PubMed
5.6field-weighted citation impact, top 3% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

19 citing papers in PubMed, 38 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Various Aspects Involved in the Study of Tooth Bleaching Procedure: A Questionnaire-Based Study.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2022
    Article
  13. Article
  14. PROMs in AI patients.British dental journal · 2022
    Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors at 3 institutions in 6 countries.

Kelvin I AfrashtehfarDivision of Restorative Dental Sciences, Department of Clinical Sciences, College of Dentistry, Ajman University, 346 Ajman, UAE.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6053-8967
Mansour K A AsseryDepartment of Prosthodontics, College of Dentistry, Riyadh Elm University, Riyadh 12611, Saudi Arabia.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8804-6585
S Ross BryantDepartment of Oral Health Sciences, Faculty of Dentistry, University of British Columbia, Vancouver BC V6T 1Z3, Canada.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1625-9370
Riyadh Elm University · SAUniversity of Bern · CHUniversity of British Columbia · CA

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThis review aimed to concisely describe the current aesthetic objective indices for a single-implant maxillary anterior crown. The secondary aim was to propose introducing a unified, standardized questionnaire for adequately collecting patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) in implant dentistry. MATERIALS AND

methodsA literature review was conducted using both EMBASE/Ovid and MEDLINE/PubMed databases by combining keywords and Emtree/Mesh terms related to "Esthetics," "Self-Assessment or Surveys and Questionnaires," and "Single-Tooth Dental Implants."

resultsThe most meaningful aesthetic objective indices for single implants in the literature are the Pink Esthetic Score (PES), the Papilla Presence Index (PPI), Peri-Implant and Crown Index (PICI), PES/White Esthetic Score (PES/WES), the Implant Crown Aesthetic Index (ICAI), and a modified version of the ICAI (mod-ICAI) index. Clearly, PES/WES is still the most widely accepted tool. It is encouraging to observe that there is an increasing tendency in recent years to report PROMs more frequently in the implant dentistry literature. We proposed the implementation of a unified, standardized questionnaire using a self-administered visual analogue scale (VAS) scoring system, which evaluates overall satisfaction, comfort, tooth appearance, gingival appearance, function, and hygiene complexity. This tool should be validated in the oral implantology research context for its regular implementation or further development.

conclusionsConducting qualitative studies among dental implant patients who received few implants or single-tooth implant reconstructions in the aesthetic zone may help dental researchers understand better how to efficiently develop and validate a quantitative instrument. This standard tool would reduce heterogeneity bias by providing comparable data between studies.

Identifiers

PMID33708255
PMCPMC7932805
OpenAlexW3132593762

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.