Skip to main content

Table 5 Esthetic outcomes

From: Esthetic, mechanical, and biological outcomes of various implant abutments for single-tooth replacement in the anterior region: a systematic review of the literature

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
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
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)
  1. KMt width of the buccal keratinized mucosa (gingiva) at the adjacent teeth, CLt distance between the mid-facial gingival margin and the incisal edge of adjacent teeth, KMi width of the buccal keratinized mucosa at the implant site, Cli distance between the mid-facial gingival margin and the incisal edge of implant crown, PH papilla height, B baseline, Y year, M months, CR cemented restoration, SR screw retained restoration, CI crown insertion, t test, c control