Table 5 Esthetic outcomes
Study | Indices | Esthetic outcomes | |
|---|---|---|---|
Galluci et al. 2011a [51] Galluci et al. 2011b [52] | PES, WES | PH, CLt, Cli, KMi, KMt similar between groups (p > 0.05) Significant increase in the mean PH (mesial and distal) between B and CI and between CI and 1 Y Mean CLi between CI and 1 Y p > 0.05, between 1 Y and 2 Y significant recession Mean KM p > 0.05 between groups PES, WES between groups P > 0.05. PES was higher than WES (total score approximately 13) | |
Hosseini et al. 2011 [66] | CIS | Crown morphology between groups (p > 0.05) Color match better for ceramic group (p = 0.03) Mucosal dicoloration and PI p > 0.05 between groups (papilla index improvement from B to 1 Y in both groups) Overall CIS between groups p > 0.05 | |
Brandenberg et al. 2017 [48] | Modified PI | PI increased between B and 6 M and then slightly decreased (p > 0.05) Implants lower PI than natural teeth (p < 0.05) 1mm recession in one implant (control) | |
Carrillo de Albornoz et al. 2014 [67] | ICAI PI | ICAI-crown scores: satisfactory in t group, moderate in c group (p > 0.05) ICAI-mucosa scores: improved color and surface of soft tissues with zirconia (p = 0.065) Zirconia: higher PI (p = 0.053) | |
Patil et al. 2017 [62] | PES/PI | p > 0.05 between PES for t and c at B and 1 Y PES slightly improved after 1 Y in both groups (p < 0.05) p > 0.05 between PI of t and c (positive association between papillary fill and bone height between implant and tooth) | |
Baldini et al. 2016 [68] | ICAI and PI | ICAI-mucosa scores: higher at 1 M (p = 0.01) for zirconia group (improved color and surface of soft tissues). Both groups: increase of PI between B and 12 M (p < 0.05) | |
Bittner et al. 2020 [65] | N/A | Mean recession at 6 M (p = 0.60): Pink, thin: 1.37 mm/pink, thick: 1.28 mm Gray, thin: 1.99 mm/gray, thick: 1.13 mm The recession and collapse showed no correlation to color | |
Wittneben et al. 2020 [59] | mPES and WES | 1 Y: Mean PES: group A: 7/group B: 7.65 Mean WES: group A: 8.28/group B: 8.50 | No difference over time |
3 Y: Mean PES: group A: 7.76/group B: 7.32 Mean WES: group A: 8.88/group B: 8.56 | PES higher between B and 3 Y for group A (p = 0.04) | ||
Significant differences in implant crown length between B and 3 Y (p = 0.004) and 6 M and 3 Y (p = 0.012) | |||
Amorfini et al. 2018 [73] | Implant crown/tooth crown index PI PES/WES | Implant crown and tooth crown values similar between groups/p = 0.01 for intragroup changes in 10 Y PI increased in both groups at 2 Y (p < 0.05) and then stabilized PES 7.5 (SR), 7 (CR) (p > 0.05) WES 7.9 (SR), 7.4 (CR) (p > 0.05) | |
Eisner et al. 2018 [49] | Modified PI | p > 0.05 for PI between groups at 3Y and for intragroup changes (c slight increase in PI/ t slight decrease in PI mesially) No recession in t at 3Y/ in c recession at 3Y −0.11 mm (p = 0.02) | |
Thoma et al. 2018a [54] | Modified PI | Slight improvement in PI in both groups over time (p > 0.05) and no difference between groups Crown height stable over time MT slightly superior in SR group (p > 0.05) | |
Laass et al. 2019 [50] | Modified PI | mPI increased over time in the c and decreased in the t | |
Kraus et al. 2019 [57] | Modified PI | mPI: p > 0.31 between two groups Median mucosal level changes were 0.0 mm at both SR and CR between B and 3 Y (p > 0.44) | |