ArticleInternational journal of implant dentistry2026
The extended pink esthetic score (E-PES): a reliability and multidirectional score-behavior study for peri-implant esthetic assessment.
Article in International journal of implant dentistry, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesThe Pink Esthetic Score (PES) is widely used to assess peri-implant soft-tissue esthetics around single-tooth implant restorations; however, frontal-view assessment may incompletely capture three-dimensional peri-implant features such as buccolingual contour, emergence profile, and mucosal scarring. This study introduced the Extended Pink Esthetic Score (E-PES), a multidirectional assessment framework incorporating frontal, profile, and occlusal views. MATERIALS AND
methodsThirty single-tooth implant restorations in the maxillary esthetic zone were evaluated using standardized photographs. Twenty blinded evaluators (five periodontists, five prosthodontists, five orthodontists, and five general practitioners) scored each case using two assessment systems. The traditional frontal-view assessment using the seven-variable PES, then the multidirectional E-PES assessment using frontal, profile, and occlusal views with nine variables. The E-PES retained the seven core PES variables, with emergence profile and mucosal scarring added to the variables to give a multidirectional view. Assessments were repeated after a three-week washout period with randomized image order. Reliability, agreement, and score-distribution analyses were performed.
resultsA total of 600 first-round assessments were completed for each scoring system and included in the paired frontal-view versus multidirectional score analysis. Original PES and multidirectional E-PES-compatible total scores averaged 9.98 ± 3.96 and 9.76 ± 3.52, respectively, yielding a small but statistically significant mean paired difference of 0.22 points (P < 0.001). Scores differed in 442 of 600 paired assessments (73.67%). Agreement between frontal-view and multidirectional total scores remained excellent (ICC = 0.919; ICC = 0.958). The alveolar process/buccal contour parameter showed the greatest mean shift, decreasing from 1.31 ± 0.69 to 1.10 ± 0.74 (P < 0.001). Inter-examiner reliability for multidirectional total scores was moderate at the individual-rater level (single-measure ICC = 0.633) and high at the group level (average-measure ICC = 0.972).
conclusionsE-PES preserved the reliability of the original PES while identifying clinically relevant esthetic differences not fully captured by frontal-view assessment alone. Multidirectional evaluation particularly enhanced assessment of alveolar-process/buccal-contour morphology, supporting E-PES as a practical refinement of PES for more comprehensive peri-implant esthetic evaluation.
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.