ArticleActa odontologica Scandinavica2025
Patient-reported outcomes of esthetics, function and oral hygiene with single dental implants 10-15 years after placement: a cross-sectional study.
Article in Acta odontologica Scandinavica, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Management of Peri-Implant Soft Tissue Dehiscence Using Laterally Closed Tunneling With a Connective Tissue Graft: A Case Report.Clinical case reports · 2026Article
- Implants in Adolescents: Clinical Outcomes After Growth-Pattern-Adapted Implant Placement.Journal of functional biomaterials · 2026Article
- White Esthetic Score as a Tool for Esthetic Assessment of Tooth-Supported Restorations: A Comprehensive Review with Case Illustration.Bioengineering (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
- Impact of different implant abutment materials on peri-implant soft tissues.Bioinformation · 2026Article
- The letter to Editor regarding 'Patient-reported outcomes of esthetics, function and oral hygiene with single dental implants 10-15 years after placement: a cross-sectional study'.Acta odontologica Scandinavica · 2025Article
- 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
aimsLittle attention has been paid to patients' perception of function and esthetics with single dental implants. The aim of this study was therefore to describe patient-reported function and esthetic outcomes in single dental implants. A second aim was to study the objective esthetics in single dental implants. MATERIAL AND
methodsPatients with one single dental implant in the esthetic zone were selected. Two questionnaires with visual analog scales (VAS) were filled in by the patients, and intraoral photographs were taken. One of the questionnaires related to satisfaction with cleaning and function, and the other involved the esthetics of the single dental implant. One dentist reviewed the photographs using the pink esthetic score/white esthetic score (PES/WES) index. Results: For chewing and for speaking, the scores were 8.8 and 9.9 respectively on a VAS (best 10). The overall esthetic score on a VAS was 8.6 (best 10). The PES/WES in the present study was 14.6 (standard deviation [SD] ± 1.9), and 3/45 (6.7%) of the single dental implants never reached clinical acceptability. Conclusions: Patients reported high satisfaction with both the function and the esthetics of single dental implants. Both subjectively and objectively, the peri-implant mucosa was less favorable compared with the crown.
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.