ArticlePatient preference and adherence2022
Esthetic Evaluation and Acceptability of Different Hole Designs on Implant Crowns from the Perspective of Patients and Dentists in China.
Article in Patient preference and adherence, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
5 citing papers in PubMed, 6 citations in OpenAlex.
- Customized implants and All-on-4 in the rehabilitation of anodontia: A case report.Oral and maxillofacial surgery · 2025Article
- Article
- The impact of airflow on enamel surface roughness and color change.Dental research journal · 2025Article
- Changes of dental anxiety, aesthetic perception and oral health-related quality of life related to influencing factors of patients' demographics after anterior implant treatment: a prospective study.International journal of implant dentistry · 2023Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeAbutment access hole on dental implant crowns may facilitate crown retrieval and reduce cement overflow but present esthetic obstacle for patients. This study aimed to investigate the esthetic evaluation and acceptability of implant crowns with different hole designs from the perspective of patients and dentists. MATERIALS AND
methodsAnterior and posterior implant zirconia crowns were fabricated into three types: no hole (NH), 1 mm micro hole (MH), and 2.5 mm regular hole (RH). The NH crown was set as the control, and the anterior and posterior crowns with MH and RH were evaluated. The subjects, who were recruited randomly, were comprised of lay patients (n=60) and professional dentists (n=30). All subjects were invited to evaluate the esthetic performance of MH and RH crowns on a Visual Analog Scale (VAS), rate them from 0 to 10, state their acceptability of these crowns, and label them as acceptable and unacceptable.
resultsThe ANOVA analysis of the VAS esthetic evaluation showed that the size of the hole, the position of the teeth, and the professional background of the subject significantly and independently affected esthetic perception. Crowns with MH in the posterior position had higher esthetic scores and acceptability compared with crowns with RH in the anterior position, and dentists tended to show higher acceptance and better esthetic rating for crowns with holes compared with lay patients.
conclusionThe hypothesis that patients and dentists hold similar esthetic evaluations or acceptability towards implant crown hole designs was rejected. Lay patients had a lower tolerance for venting holes than dentists. Crowns with 1 mm micro holes were more recommendable than crowns with regular abutment access holes from the point of view of satisfying patients' esthetic needs.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.