Single‐Tooth Implants with Different Neck Designs: A Randomized Clinical Trial Evaluating the Aesthetic Outcome
Identifieur interne : 000D46 ( Istex/Corpus ); précédent : 000D45; suivant : 000D47Single‐Tooth Implants with Different Neck Designs: A Randomized Clinical Trial Evaluating the Aesthetic Outcome
Auteurs : Laurens Den Hartog ; Gerry M. Raghoebar ; James J. Huddleston Slater ; Kees Stellingsma ; Arjan Vissink ; Henny J. A. MeijerSource :
- Clinical Implant Dentistry and Related Research [ 1523-0899 ] ; 2013-06.
English descriptors
- KwdEn :
- Abutment, Adjacent dentition, Adjacent teeth, Aesthetic outcome, Aesthetic satisfaction, Aesthetic zone, Aesthetics, Augmentation, Augmentation procedure, Biocare, Bone loss, Buser, Center groningen, Clin, Clin implant dent relat, Clinical implant dentistry, Contralateral, Contralateral tooth, Crown placement, Dentistry, Different neck designs, Esthetic zone, General patient satisfaction, Groningen, Icai, Implant, Implant crown, Implant neck, Implant neck designs, Implant placement, Implant survival, Implant therapy, Interobserver, Interobserver agreement, Marginal bone, Marginal bone level, Marginal bone level changes, Marginal bone loss, Maxillary, Maxillofacial, Maxillofacial surgery, Months placement, Mucosa, Nobel biocare, Oral hygiene, Oral maxillofac implants, Patient satisfaction, Penalty points, Periimplant, Periodontol, Poor aesthetics, Preoperative situation, Prospective study, Radiographic, Radiographic evaluation, Regression analyses, Rough group, Rough implant neck, Satisfactory crown aesthetics, Scalloped, Scalloped group, Scalloped implants, Smooth group, Standard deviation, Study group, Study groups, Titanium abutments, White aesthetics, Zirconia.
- Teeft :
- Abutment, Adjacent dentition, Adjacent teeth, Aesthetic outcome, Aesthetic satisfaction, Aesthetic zone, Aesthetics, Augmentation, Augmentation procedure, Biocare, Bone loss, Buser, Center groningen, Clin, Clin implant dent relat, Clinical implant dentistry, Contralateral, Contralateral tooth, Crown placement, Dentistry, Different neck designs, Esthetic zone, General patient satisfaction, Groningen, Icai, Implant, Implant crown, Implant neck, Implant neck designs, Implant placement, Implant survival, Implant therapy, Interobserver, Interobserver agreement, Marginal bone, Marginal bone level, Marginal bone level changes, Marginal bone loss, Maxillary, Maxillofacial, Maxillofacial surgery, Months placement, Mucosa, Nobel biocare, Oral hygiene, Oral maxillofac implants, Patient satisfaction, Penalty points, Periimplant, Periodontol, Poor aesthetics, Preoperative situation, Prospective study, Radiographic, Radiographic evaluation, Regression analyses, Rough group, Rough implant neck, Satisfactory crown aesthetics, Scalloped, Scalloped group, Scalloped implants, Smooth group, Standard deviation, Study group, Study groups, Titanium abutments, White aesthetics, Zirconia.
Abstract
Aim: To evaluate the aesthetic outcome of single‐tooth implants in the aesthetic zone with different neck designs from a professional's and patient's perception.
Url:
DOI: 10.1111/j.1708-8208.2011.00372.x
Links to Exploration step
ISTEX:1B37750592D53233A1F947C372676D0F89A7852FLe document en format XML
<record><TEI wicri:istexFullTextTei="biblStruct"><teiHeader><fileDesc><titleStmt><title xml:lang="en">Single‐Tooth Implants with Different Neck Designs: A Randomized Clinical Trial Evaluating the Aesthetic Outcome</title><author><name sortKey="Den Hartog, Laurens" sort="Den Hartog, Laurens" uniqKey="Den Hartog L" first="Laurens" last="Den Hartog">Laurens Den Hartog</name><affiliation><mods:affiliation>Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, University Medical Center Groningen and University of Groningen, Groningen, the Netherlands;</mods:affiliation></affiliation><affiliation><mods:affiliation>E-mail: l.den.hartog@kchir.umcg.nl</mods:affiliation></affiliation></author><author><name sortKey="Raghoebar, Gerry M" sort="Raghoebar, Gerry M" uniqKey="Raghoebar G" first="Gerry M." last="Raghoebar">Gerry M. Raghoebar</name><affiliation><mods:affiliation>Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, University Medical Center Groningen and University of Groningen, Groningen, the Netherlands;</mods:affiliation></affiliation></author><author><name sortKey="Slater, James J Huddleston" sort="Slater, James J Huddleston" uniqKey="Slater J" first="James J. Huddleston" last="Slater">James J. Huddleston Slater</name><affiliation><mods:affiliation>Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery and Center for Dentistry and Oral Hygiene, Department of Oral Health Care and Clinical Epidemiology, University Medical Center Groningen and University of Groningen, Groningen, the Netherlands;</mods:affiliation></affiliation></author><author><name sortKey="Stellingsma, Kees" sort="Stellingsma, Kees" uniqKey="Stellingsma K" first="Kees" last="Stellingsma">Kees Stellingsma</name><affiliation><mods:affiliation>Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, University Medical Center Groningen and University of Groningen, Groningen, the Netherlands;</mods:affiliation></affiliation></author><author><name sortKey="Vissink, Arjan" sort="Vissink, Arjan" uniqKey="Vissink A" first="Arjan" last="Vissink">Arjan Vissink</name><affiliation><mods:affiliation>Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, University Medical Center Groningen and University of Groningen, Groningen, the Netherlands;</mods:affiliation></affiliation></author><author><name sortKey="Meijer, Henny J A" sort="Meijer, Henny J A" uniqKey="Meijer H" first="Henny J. A." last="Meijer">Henny J. A. Meijer</name><affiliation><mods:affiliation>Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery and Center for Dentistry and Oral Hygiene, Department of Prosthodontics, University Medical Center Groningen and University of Groningen, Groningen, the Netherlands</mods:affiliation></affiliation></author></titleStmt><publicationStmt><idno type="wicri:source">ISTEX</idno><idno type="RBID">ISTEX:1B37750592D53233A1F947C372676D0F89A7852F</idno><date when="2013" year="2013">2013</date><idno type="doi">10.1111/j.1708-8208.2011.00372.x</idno><idno type="url">https://api.istex.fr/document/1B37750592D53233A1F947C372676D0F89A7852F/fulltext/pdf</idno><idno type="wicri:Area/Istex/Corpus">000D46</idno><idno type="wicri:explorRef" wicri:stream="Istex" wicri:step="Corpus" wicri:corpus="ISTEX">000D46</idno></publicationStmt><sourceDesc><biblStruct><analytic><title level="a" type="main">Single‐Tooth Implants with Different Neck Designs: A Randomized Clinical Trial Evaluating the Aesthetic Outcome</title><author><name sortKey="Den Hartog, Laurens" sort="Den Hartog, Laurens" uniqKey="Den Hartog L" first="Laurens" last="Den Hartog">Laurens Den Hartog</name><affiliation><mods:affiliation>Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, University Medical Center Groningen and University of Groningen, Groningen, the Netherlands;</mods:affiliation></affiliation><affiliation><mods:affiliation>E-mail: l.den.hartog@kchir.umcg.nl</mods:affiliation></affiliation></author><author><name sortKey="Raghoebar, Gerry M" sort="Raghoebar, Gerry M" uniqKey="Raghoebar G" first="Gerry M." last="Raghoebar">Gerry M. Raghoebar</name><affiliation><mods:affiliation>Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, University Medical Center Groningen and University of Groningen, Groningen, the Netherlands;</mods:affiliation></affiliation></author><author><name sortKey="Slater, James J Huddleston" sort="Slater, James J Huddleston" uniqKey="Slater J" first="James J. Huddleston" last="Slater">James J. Huddleston Slater</name><affiliation><mods:affiliation>Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery and Center for Dentistry and Oral Hygiene, Department of Oral Health Care and Clinical Epidemiology, University Medical Center Groningen and University of Groningen, Groningen, the Netherlands;</mods:affiliation></affiliation></author><author><name sortKey="Stellingsma, Kees" sort="Stellingsma, Kees" uniqKey="Stellingsma K" first="Kees" last="Stellingsma">Kees Stellingsma</name><affiliation><mods:affiliation>Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, University Medical Center Groningen and University of Groningen, Groningen, the Netherlands;</mods:affiliation></affiliation></author><author><name sortKey="Vissink, Arjan" sort="Vissink, Arjan" uniqKey="Vissink A" first="Arjan" last="Vissink">Arjan Vissink</name><affiliation><mods:affiliation>Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, University Medical Center Groningen and University of Groningen, Groningen, the Netherlands;</mods:affiliation></affiliation></author><author><name sortKey="Meijer, Henny J A" sort="Meijer, Henny J A" uniqKey="Meijer H" first="Henny J. A." last="Meijer">Henny J. A. Meijer</name><affiliation><mods:affiliation>Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery and Center for Dentistry and Oral Hygiene, Department of Prosthodontics, University Medical Center Groningen and University of Groningen, Groningen, the Netherlands</mods:affiliation></affiliation></author></analytic><monogr></monogr><series><title level="j" type="main">Clinical Implant Dentistry and Related Research</title><title level="j" type="alt">CLINICAL IMPLANT DENTISTRY RELATED RESEARCH</title><idno type="ISSN">1523-0899</idno><idno type="eISSN">1708-8208</idno><imprint><biblScope unit="vol">15</biblScope><biblScope unit="issue">3</biblScope><biblScope unit="page" from="311">311</biblScope><biblScope unit="page" to="321">321</biblScope><biblScope unit="page-count">11</biblScope><publisher>Blackwell Publishing Ltd</publisher><pubPlace>Oxford, UK</pubPlace><date type="published" when="2013-06">2013-06</date></imprint><idno type="ISSN">1523-0899</idno></series></biblStruct></sourceDesc><seriesStmt><idno type="ISSN">1523-0899</idno></seriesStmt></fileDesc><profileDesc><textClass><keywords scheme="KwdEn" xml:lang="en"><term>Abutment</term><term>Adjacent dentition</term><term>Adjacent teeth</term><term>Aesthetic outcome</term><term>Aesthetic satisfaction</term><term>Aesthetic zone</term><term>Aesthetics</term><term>Augmentation</term><term>Augmentation procedure</term><term>Biocare</term><term>Bone loss</term><term>Buser</term><term>Center groningen</term><term>Clin</term><term>Clin implant dent relat</term><term>Clinical implant dentistry</term><term>Contralateral</term><term>Contralateral tooth</term><term>Crown placement</term><term>Dentistry</term><term>Different neck designs</term><term>Esthetic zone</term><term>General patient satisfaction</term><term>Groningen</term><term>Icai</term><term>Implant</term><term>Implant crown</term><term>Implant neck</term><term>Implant neck designs</term><term>Implant placement</term><term>Implant survival</term><term>Implant therapy</term><term>Interobserver</term><term>Interobserver agreement</term><term>Marginal bone</term><term>Marginal bone level</term><term>Marginal bone level changes</term><term>Marginal bone loss</term><term>Maxillary</term><term>Maxillofacial</term><term>Maxillofacial surgery</term><term>Months placement</term><term>Mucosa</term><term>Nobel biocare</term><term>Oral hygiene</term><term>Oral maxillofac implants</term><term>Patient satisfaction</term><term>Penalty points</term><term>Periimplant</term><term>Periodontol</term><term>Poor aesthetics</term><term>Preoperative situation</term><term>Prospective study</term><term>Radiographic</term><term>Radiographic evaluation</term><term>Regression analyses</term><term>Rough group</term><term>Rough implant neck</term><term>Satisfactory crown aesthetics</term><term>Scalloped</term><term>Scalloped group</term><term>Scalloped implants</term><term>Smooth group</term><term>Standard deviation</term><term>Study group</term><term>Study groups</term><term>Titanium abutments</term><term>White aesthetics</term><term>Zirconia</term></keywords><keywords scheme="Teeft" xml:lang="en"><term>Abutment</term><term>Adjacent dentition</term><term>Adjacent teeth</term><term>Aesthetic outcome</term><term>Aesthetic satisfaction</term><term>Aesthetic zone</term><term>Aesthetics</term><term>Augmentation</term><term>Augmentation procedure</term><term>Biocare</term><term>Bone loss</term><term>Buser</term><term>Center groningen</term><term>Clin</term><term>Clin implant dent relat</term><term>Clinical implant dentistry</term><term>Contralateral</term><term>Contralateral tooth</term><term>Crown placement</term><term>Dentistry</term><term>Different neck designs</term><term>Esthetic zone</term><term>General patient satisfaction</term><term>Groningen</term><term>Icai</term><term>Implant</term><term>Implant crown</term><term>Implant neck</term><term>Implant neck designs</term><term>Implant placement</term><term>Implant survival</term><term>Implant therapy</term><term>Interobserver</term><term>Interobserver agreement</term><term>Marginal bone</term><term>Marginal bone level</term><term>Marginal bone level changes</term><term>Marginal bone loss</term><term>Maxillary</term><term>Maxillofacial</term><term>Maxillofacial surgery</term><term>Months placement</term><term>Mucosa</term><term>Nobel biocare</term><term>Oral hygiene</term><term>Oral maxillofac implants</term><term>Patient satisfaction</term><term>Penalty points</term><term>Periimplant</term><term>Periodontol</term><term>Poor aesthetics</term><term>Preoperative situation</term><term>Prospective study</term><term>Radiographic</term><term>Radiographic evaluation</term><term>Regression analyses</term><term>Rough group</term><term>Rough implant neck</term><term>Satisfactory crown aesthetics</term><term>Scalloped</term><term>Scalloped group</term><term>Scalloped implants</term><term>Smooth group</term><term>Standard deviation</term><term>Study group</term><term>Study groups</term><term>Titanium abutments</term><term>White aesthetics</term><term>Zirconia</term></keywords></textClass></profileDesc></teiHeader><front><div type="abstract">Aim: To evaluate the aesthetic outcome of single‐tooth implants in the aesthetic zone with different neck designs from a professional's and patient's perception.</div></front></TEI><istex><corpusName>wiley</corpusName><keywords><teeft><json:string>implant</json:string><json:string>icai</json:string><json:string>aesthetic outcome</json:string><json:string>groningen</json:string><json:string>aesthetics</json:string><json:string>clin</json:string><json:string>augmentation</json:string><json:string>implant placement</json:string><json:string>implant neck</json:string><json:string>contralateral</json:string><json:string>implant crown</json:string><json:string>abutment</json:string><json:string>center groningen</json:string><json:string>periodontol</json:string><json:string>marginal bone loss</json:string><json:string>contralateral tooth</json:string><json:string>maxillofacial surgery</json:string><json:string>radiographic</json:string><json:string>patient satisfaction</json:string><json:string>maxillofacial</json:string><json:string>maxillary</json:string><json:string>zirconia</json:string><json:string>interobserver</json:string><json:string>penalty points</json:string><json:string>biocare</json:string><json:string>nobel biocare</json:string><json:string>buser</json:string><json:string>periimplant</json:string><json:string>aesthetic zone</json:string><json:string>augmentation procedure</json:string><json:string>study groups</json:string><json:string>different neck designs</json:string><json:string>interobserver agreement</json:string><json:string>clin implant dent relat</json:string><json:string>smooth group</json:string><json:string>adjacent dentition</json:string><json:string>clinical implant dentistry</json:string><json:string>preoperative situation</json:string><json:string>aesthetic satisfaction</json:string><json:string>scalloped group</json:string><json:string>scalloped</json:string><json:string>dentistry</json:string><json:string>mucosa</json:string><json:string>rough group</json:string><json:string>implant neck designs</json:string><json:string>general patient satisfaction</json:string><json:string>rough implant neck</json:string><json:string>implant therapy</json:string><json:string>marginal bone level</json:string><json:string>prospective study</json:string><json:string>months placement</json:string><json:string>study group</json:string><json:string>esthetic zone</json:string><json:string>crown placement</json:string><json:string>standard deviation</json:string><json:string>adjacent teeth</json:string><json:string>satisfactory crown aesthetics</json:string><json:string>marginal bone level changes</json:string><json:string>bone loss</json:string><json:string>poor aesthetics</json:string><json:string>white aesthetics</json:string><json:string>titanium abutments</json:string><json:string>regression analyses</json:string><json:string>marginal bone</json:string><json:string>implant survival</json:string><json:string>radiographic evaluation</json:string><json:string>oral hygiene</json:string><json:string>oral maxillofac implants</json:string><json:string>scalloped implants</json:string></teeft></keywords><author><json:item><name>Laurens den Hartog DDS, PhD</name><affiliations><json:string>Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, University Medical Center Groningen and University of Groningen, Groningen, the Netherlands;</json:string><json:string>E-mail: l.den.hartog@kchir.umcg.nl</json:string></affiliations></json:item><json:item><name>Gerry M. Raghoebar DDS, MD, PhD</name><affiliations><json:string>Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, University Medical Center Groningen and University of Groningen, Groningen, the Netherlands;</json:string></affiliations></json:item><json:item><name>James J. Huddleston Slater DDS, PhD</name><affiliations><json:string>Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery and Center for Dentistry and Oral Hygiene, Department of Oral Health Care and Clinical Epidemiology, University Medical Center Groningen and University of Groningen, Groningen, the Netherlands;</json:string></affiliations></json:item><json:item><name>Kees Stellingsma DDS, PhD</name><affiliations><json:string>Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, University Medical Center Groningen and University of Groningen, Groningen, the Netherlands;</json:string></affiliations></json:item><json:item><name>Arjan Vissink DDS, MD, PhD</name><affiliations><json:string>Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, University Medical Center Groningen and University of Groningen, Groningen, the Netherlands;</json:string></affiliations></json:item><json:item><name>Henny J. A. Meijer DDS, PhD</name><affiliations><json:string>Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery and Center for Dentistry and Oral Hygiene, Department of Prosthodontics, University Medical Center Groningen and University of Groningen, Groningen, the Netherlands</json:string></affiliations></json:item></author><subject><json:item><lang><json:string>eng</json:string></lang><value>aesthetics</value></json:item><json:item><lang><json:string>eng</json:string></lang><value>dental implant</value></json:item><json:item><lang><json:string>eng</json:string></lang><value>esthetics</value></json:item><json:item><lang><json:string>eng</json:string></lang><value>implant neck</value></json:item><json:item><lang><json:string>eng</json:string></lang><value>single tooth</value></json:item><json:item><lang><json:string>eng</json:string></lang><value>soft tissue</value></json:item></subject><articleId><json:string>CID372</json:string></articleId><arkIstex>ark:/67375/WNG-24V1WLL7-7</arkIstex><language><json:string>eng</json:string></language><originalGenre><json:string>article</json:string></originalGenre><abstract>Aim: To evaluate the aesthetic outcome of single‐tooth implants in the aesthetic zone with different neck designs from a professional's and patient's perception.</abstract><qualityIndicators><score>7.276</score><pdfWordCount>5958</pdfWordCount><pdfCharCount>37769</pdfCharCount><pdfVersion>1.3</pdfVersion><pdfPageCount>11</pdfPageCount><pdfPageSize>585 x 783 pts</pdfPageSize><refBibsNative>true</refBibsNative><abstractWordCount>23</abstractWordCount><abstractCharCount>161</abstractCharCount><keywordCount>6</keywordCount></qualityIndicators><title>Single‐Tooth Implants with Different Neck Designs: A Randomized Clinical Trial Evaluating the Aesthetic Outcome</title><pmid><json:string>21815991</json:string></pmid><genre><json:string>article</json:string></genre><host><title>Clinical Implant Dentistry and Related Research</title><language><json:string>unknown</json:string></language><doi><json:string>10.1111/(ISSN)1708-8208</json:string></doi><issn><json:string>1523-0899</json:string></issn><eissn><json:string>1708-8208</json:string></eissn><publisherId><json:string>CID</json:string></publisherId><volume>15</volume><issue>3</issue><pages><first>311</first><last>321</last><total>11</total></pages><genre><json:string>journal</json:string></genre><subject><json:item><value>ARTICLE</value></json:item></subject></host><namedEntities><unitex><date><json:string>between January 2005 and February 2008</json:string><json:string>2013</json:string></date><geogName></geogName><orgName><json:string>Wiley Periodicals, Inc.</json:string><json:string>SPSS Inc., Chicago</json:string><json:string>University of Groningen</json:string><json:string>University Medical Center Groningen</json:string><json:string>Shofu Inc., Kyoto, Japan</json:string><json:string>Related Research, Volume</json:string><json:string>ASA</json:string><json:string>Department of Oral Health Care and Clinical Epidemiology</json:string><json:string>Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery</json:string><json:string>Medical Ethical Committee of the University Medical Center Groningen and written informed consent</json:string><json:string>Department of Prosthodontics, University Medical Center Groningen and University</json:string><json:string>American Society of Anesthesiologists</json:string></orgName><orgName_funder></orgName_funder><orgName_provider></orgName_provider><persName><json:string>Kees Stellingsma</json:string><json:string>Johnson Gateway</json:string><json:string>Belser</json:string><json:string>Satisfaction</json:string><json:string>Buser</json:string><json:string>Gehrke</json:string><json:string>J. A. Meijer</json:string><json:string>Laurens</json:string><json:string>To</json:string><json:string>Figure</json:string><json:string>Arjan Vissink</json:string></persName><placeName><json:string>Groningen</json:string><json:string>Switzerland</json:string><json:string>Europe</json:string><json:string>Japan</json:string><json:string>Tokyo</json:string><json:string>Leuven</json:string><json:string>Sweden</json:string><json:string>Belgium</json:string><json:string>Netherlands</json:string></placeName><ref_url></ref_url><ref_bibl></ref_bibl><bibl></bibl></unitex></namedEntities><ark><json:string>ark:/67375/WNG-24V1WLL7-7</json:string></ark><categories><wos><json:string>1 - science</json:string><json:string>2 - dentistry, oral surgery & medicine</json:string></wos><scienceMetrix><json:string>1 - health sciences</json:string><json:string>2 - clinical medicine</json:string><json:string>3 - dentistry</json:string></scienceMetrix><scopus><json:string>1 - Health Sciences</json:string><json:string>2 - Dentistry</json:string><json:string>3 - General Dentistry</json:string><json:string>1 - Health Sciences</json:string><json:string>2 - Dentistry</json:string><json:string>3 - Oral Surgery</json:string></scopus></categories><publicationDate>2013</publicationDate><copyrightDate>2013</copyrightDate><doi><json:string>10.1111/j.1708-8208.2011.00372.x</json:string></doi><id>1B37750592D53233A1F947C372676D0F89A7852F</id><score>1</score><fulltext><json:item><extension>pdf</extension><original>true</original><mimetype>application/pdf</mimetype><uri>https://api.istex.fr/document/1B37750592D53233A1F947C372676D0F89A7852F/fulltext/pdf</uri></json:item><json:item><extension>zip</extension><original>false</original><mimetype>application/zip</mimetype><uri>https://api.istex.fr/document/1B37750592D53233A1F947C372676D0F89A7852F/fulltext/zip</uri></json:item><istex:fulltextTEI uri="https://api.istex.fr/document/1B37750592D53233A1F947C372676D0F89A7852F/fulltext/tei"><teiHeader><fileDesc><titleStmt><title level="a" type="main">Single‐Tooth Implants with Different Neck Designs: A Randomized Clinical Trial Evaluating the Aesthetic Outcome</title></titleStmt><publicationStmt><authority>ISTEX</authority><publisher>Blackwell Publishing Ltd</publisher><pubPlace>Oxford, UK</pubPlace><availability><licence>© 2011 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.</licence></availability><date type="published" when="2013-06"></date></publicationStmt><notesStmt><note type="content-type" subtype="article" source="article" scheme="https://content-type.data.istex.fr/ark:/67375/XTP-6N5SZHKN-D">article</note><note type="publication-type" subtype="journal" scheme="https://publication-type.data.istex.fr/ark:/67375/JMC-0GLKJH51-B">journal</note></notesStmt><sourceDesc><biblStruct type="article"><analytic><title level="a" type="main">Single‐Tooth Implants with Different Neck Designs: A Randomized Clinical Trial Evaluating the Aesthetic Outcome</title><title level="a" type="short">Single‐Tooth Implants in the Aesthetic Zone</title><author xml:id="author-0000" role="corresp"><persName><forename type="first">Laurens</forename><surname>den Hartog</surname><roleName type="degree">DDS, PhD</roleName></persName><affiliation>Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, University Medical Center Groningen and University of Groningen, Groningen, the Netherlands;<address><country key="NL"></country></address></affiliation><affiliation>Dr. Laurens den Hartog, Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, University Medical Center Groningen, Hanzeplein 1, PO Box 30.001, 9700 RB Groningen, the Netherlands; e‐mail: l.den.hartog@kchir.umcg.nl</affiliation></author><author xml:id="author-0001"><persName><forename type="first">Gerry M.</forename><surname>Raghoebar</surname><roleName type="degree">DDS, MD, PhD</roleName></persName><affiliation>Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, University Medical Center Groningen and University of Groningen, Groningen, the Netherlands;<address><country key="NL"></country></address></affiliation></author><author xml:id="author-0002"><persName><forename type="first">James J. Huddleston</forename><surname>Slater</surname><roleName type="degree">DDS, PhD</roleName></persName><affiliation>Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery and Center for Dentistry and Oral Hygiene, Department of Oral Health Care and Clinical Epidemiology, University Medical Center Groningen and University of Groningen, Groningen, the Netherlands;<address><country key="NL"></country></address></affiliation></author><author xml:id="author-0003"><persName><forename type="first">Kees</forename><surname>Stellingsma</surname><roleName type="degree">DDS, PhD</roleName></persName><affiliation>Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, University Medical Center Groningen and University of Groningen, Groningen, the Netherlands;<address><country key="NL"></country></address></affiliation></author><author xml:id="author-0004"><persName><forename type="first">Arjan</forename><surname>Vissink</surname><roleName type="degree">DDS, MD, PhD</roleName></persName><affiliation>Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, University Medical Center Groningen and University of Groningen, Groningen, the Netherlands;<address><country key="NL"></country></address></affiliation></author><author xml:id="author-0005"><persName><forename type="first">Henny J. A.</forename><surname>Meijer</surname><roleName type="degree">DDS, PhD</roleName></persName><affiliation>Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery and Center for Dentistry and Oral Hygiene, Department of Prosthodontics, University Medical Center Groningen and University of Groningen, Groningen, the Netherlands<address><country key="NL"></country></address></affiliation></author><idno type="istex">1B37750592D53233A1F947C372676D0F89A7852F</idno><idno type="ark">ark:/67375/WNG-24V1WLL7-7</idno><idno type="DOI">10.1111/j.1708-8208.2011.00372.x</idno><idno type="unit">CID372</idno><idno type="toTypesetVersion">file:CID.CID372.pdf</idno></analytic><monogr><title level="j" type="main">Clinical Implant Dentistry and Related Research</title><title level="j" type="alt">CLINICAL IMPLANT DENTISTRY RELATED RESEARCH</title><idno type="pISSN">1523-0899</idno><idno type="eISSN">1708-8208</idno><idno type="book-DOI">10.1111/(ISSN)1708-8208</idno><idno type="book-part-DOI">10.1111/cid.2013.15.issue-3</idno><idno type="product">CID</idno><idno type="publisherDivision">ST</idno><imprint><biblScope unit="vol">15</biblScope><biblScope unit="issue">3</biblScope><biblScope unit="page" from="311">311</biblScope><biblScope unit="page" to="321">321</biblScope><biblScope unit="page-count">11</biblScope><publisher>Blackwell Publishing Ltd</publisher><pubPlace>Oxford, UK</pubPlace><date type="published" when="2013-06"></date></imprint></monogr></biblStruct></sourceDesc></fileDesc><profileDesc><abstract xml:lang="en" style="main"><head>ABSTRACT</head><p><hi rend="bold">Aim:</hi> To evaluate the aesthetic outcome of single‐tooth implants in the aesthetic zone with different neck designs from a professional's and patient's perception.</p><p><hi rend="bold">Materials and Methods:</hi> Ninety‐three patients with a missing anterior tooth in the maxilla were randomly assigned to be treated with an implant with a smooth neck, a rough neck with grooves or a scalloped rough neck with grooves. Implants were installed in healed sites. One year after definitive crown placement (18 months post‐implant placement), photographs were taken and the aesthetic outcome was assessed according to two objective aesthetic indexes: pink esthetic score/white esthetic score (PES/WES) and implant crown aesthetic index (ICAI). A questionnaire was used to assess the aesthetic outcome and general satisfaction from a patient's perception. Standardized radiographs were taken to measure marginal bone level changes.</p><p><hi rend="bold">Results:</hi> One implant was lost. Although there was a significant difference in marginal bone loss between the different implant neck designs (smooth neck 1.19 ± 0.82 mm, rough neck 0.90 ± 0.57 mm, scalloped neck 2.01 ± 0.77 mm), there were no differences in aesthetic outcome. According to the professional's assessments using PES/WES and ICAI, 79.3% and 62% of the cases showed acceptable crown aesthetics, and 59.8% and 56.5% of the cases showed acceptable mucosa aesthetics. Overall, patients were satisfied about the aesthetics of the mucosa (81.5%) and crown (93.3%), and general patient satisfaction was high (9.0 ± 1.0 out of a maximum of 10). According to the professional's assessment, a pre‐implant augmentation procedure was associated with less favorable aesthetics of the mucosa.</p><p><hi rend="bold">Conclusion:</hi> This study shows that the aesthetics of single‐tooth implants in the maxillary aesthetic zone appears to be independent of the implant neck designs applied but dependent on the need for pre‐implant surgery.</p></abstract><textClass><keywords xml:lang="en"><term xml:id="k1">aesthetics</term><term xml:id="k2">dental implant</term><term xml:id="k3">esthetics</term><term xml:id="k4">implant neck</term><term xml:id="k5">single tooth</term><term xml:id="k6">soft tissue</term></keywords><keywords rend="tocHeading1"><term>ARTICLES</term></keywords><keywords rend="articleCategory"><term>ARTICLE</term></keywords></textClass><langUsage><language ident="en"></language></langUsage></profileDesc></teiHeader></istex:fulltextTEI><json:item><extension>txt</extension><original>false</original><mimetype>text/plain</mimetype><uri>https://api.istex.fr/document/1B37750592D53233A1F947C372676D0F89A7852F/fulltext/txt</uri></json:item></fulltext><metadata><istex:metadataXml wicri:clean="Wiley, elements deleted: body"><istex:xmlDeclaration>version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8" standalone="yes"</istex:xmlDeclaration><istex:document><component version="2.0" type="serialArticle" xml:lang="en"><header><publicationMeta level="product"><publisherInfo><publisherName>Blackwell Publishing Ltd</publisherName><publisherLoc>Oxford, UK</publisherLoc></publisherInfo><doi origin="wiley" registered="yes">10.1111/(ISSN)1708-8208</doi><issn type="print">1523-0899</issn><issn type="electronic">1708-8208</issn><idGroup><id type="product" value="CID"></id><id type="publisherDivision" value="ST"></id></idGroup><titleGroup><title type="main" sort="CLINICAL IMPLANT DENTISTRY RELATED RESEARCH">Clinical Implant Dentistry and Related Research</title></titleGroup></publicationMeta><publicationMeta level="part" position="06103"><doi>10.1111/cid.2013.15.issue-3</doi><copyright ownership="publisher">Copyright © 2013 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.</copyright><numberingGroup><numbering number="15" type="journalVolume">15</numbering><numbering type="journalIssue">3</numbering></numberingGroup><coverDate startDate="2013-06">June 2013</coverDate></publicationMeta><publicationMeta level="unit" type="article" position="10" status="forIssue"><doi origin="wiley">10.1111/j.1708-8208.2011.00372.x</doi><idGroup><id type="unit" value="CID372"></id></idGroup><countGroup><count type="pageTotal" number="11"></count></countGroup><titleGroup><title type="tocHeading1">ARTICLES</title><title type="articleCategory">ARTICLE</title></titleGroup><copyright>© 2011 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.</copyright><eventGroup><event type="xmlConverted" agent="Converter:BPG_TO_WML3G version:3.2.2 mode:FullText" date="2013-05-22"></event><event date="2013-05-22" type="xmlCorrected"></event><event type="publishedOnlineEarlyUnpaginated" date="2011-08-04"></event><event type="firstOnline" date="2011-08-04"></event><event type="publishedOnlineFinalForm" date="2013-06-04"></event><event type="xmlConverted" agent="Converter:WILEY_ML3G_TO_WILEY_ML3GV2 version:3.8.8" date="2014-01-15"></event><event type="xmlConverted" agent="Converter:WML3G_To_WML3G version:4.6.4 mode:FullText" date="2015-10-03"></event></eventGroup><numberingGroup><numbering type="pageFirst">311</numbering><numbering type="pageLast">321</numbering></numberingGroup><correspondenceTo>Dr. Laurens den Hartog, Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, University Medical Center Groningen, Hanzeplein 1, PO Box 30.001, 9700 RB Groningen, the Netherlands; e‐mail: <email>l.den.hartog@kchir.umcg.nl</email></correspondenceTo><linkGroup><link type="toTypesetVersion" href="file:CID.CID372.pdf"></link></linkGroup></publicationMeta><contentMeta><countGroup><count type="figureTotal" number="3"></count><count type="tableTotal" number="4"></count><count type="formulaTotal" number="0"></count><count type="referenceTotal" number="33"></count><count type="wordTotal" number="6882"></count><count type="linksPubMed" number="0"></count><count type="linksCrossRef" number="0"></count></countGroup><titleGroup><title type="main">Single‐Tooth Implants with Different Neck Designs: A Randomized Clinical Trial Evaluating the Aesthetic Outcome</title><title type="shortAuthors">Clinical Implant Dentistry and Related Research, Volume *, Number *, 2011</title><title type="short">Single‐Tooth Implants in the Aesthetic Zone</title></titleGroup><creators><creator creatorRole="author" xml:id="cr1" affiliationRef="#a1" corresponding="yes"><personName><givenNames>Laurens</givenNames><familyName>den Hartog</familyName><degrees>DDS, PhD</degrees></personName></creator><creator creatorRole="author" xml:id="cr2" affiliationRef="#a1"><personName><givenNames>Gerry M.</givenNames><familyName>Raghoebar</familyName><degrees>DDS, MD, PhD</degrees></personName></creator><creator creatorRole="author" xml:id="cr3" affiliationRef="#a3"><personName><givenNames>James J. Huddleston</givenNames><familyName>Slater</familyName><degrees>DDS, PhD</degrees></personName></creator><creator creatorRole="author" xml:id="cr4" affiliationRef="#a1"><personName><givenNames>Kees</givenNames><familyName>Stellingsma</familyName><degrees>DDS, PhD</degrees></personName></creator><creator creatorRole="author" xml:id="cr5" affiliationRef="#a1"><personName><givenNames>Arjan</givenNames><familyName>Vissink</familyName><degrees>DDS, MD, PhD</degrees></personName></creator><creator creatorRole="author" xml:id="cr6" affiliationRef="#a6"><personName><givenNames>Henny J. A.</givenNames><familyName>Meijer</familyName><degrees>DDS, PhD</degrees></personName></creator></creators><affiliationGroup><affiliation xml:id="a1" countryCode="NL"><unparsedAffiliation>Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, University Medical Center Groningen and University of Groningen, Groningen, the Netherlands;</unparsedAffiliation></affiliation><affiliation xml:id="a3" countryCode="NL"><unparsedAffiliation>Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery and Center for Dentistry and Oral Hygiene, Department of Oral Health Care and Clinical Epidemiology, University Medical Center Groningen and University of Groningen, Groningen, the Netherlands;</unparsedAffiliation></affiliation><affiliation xml:id="a6" countryCode="NL"><unparsedAffiliation>Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery and Center for Dentistry and Oral Hygiene, Department of Prosthodontics, University Medical Center Groningen and University of Groningen, Groningen, the Netherlands</unparsedAffiliation></affiliation></affiliationGroup><keywordGroup xml:lang="en"><keyword xml:id="k1">aesthetics</keyword><keyword xml:id="k2">dental implant</keyword><keyword xml:id="k3">esthetics</keyword><keyword xml:id="k4">implant neck</keyword><keyword xml:id="k5">single tooth</keyword><keyword xml:id="k6">soft tissue</keyword></keywordGroup><abstractGroup><abstract type="main" xml:lang="en"><title type="main">ABSTRACT</title><p><b>Aim:</b> To evaluate the aesthetic outcome of single‐tooth implants in the aesthetic zone with different neck designs from a professional's and patient's perception.</p><p><b>Materials and Methods:</b> Ninety‐three patients with a missing anterior tooth in the maxilla were randomly assigned to be treated with an implant with a smooth neck, a rough neck with grooves or a scalloped rough neck with grooves. Implants were installed in healed sites. One year after definitive crown placement (18 months post‐implant placement), photographs were taken and the aesthetic outcome was assessed according to two objective aesthetic indexes: pink esthetic score/white esthetic score (PES/WES) and implant crown aesthetic index (ICAI). A questionnaire was used to assess the aesthetic outcome and general satisfaction from a patient's perception. Standardized radiographs were taken to measure marginal bone level changes.</p><p><b>Results:</b> One implant was lost. Although there was a significant difference in marginal bone loss between the different implant neck designs (smooth neck 1.19 ± 0.82 mm, rough neck 0.90 ± 0.57 mm, scalloped neck 2.01 ± 0.77 mm), there were no differences in aesthetic outcome. According to the professional's assessments using PES/WES and ICAI, 79.3% and 62% of the cases showed acceptable crown aesthetics, and 59.8% and 56.5% of the cases showed acceptable mucosa aesthetics. Overall, patients were satisfied about the aesthetics of the mucosa (81.5%) and crown (93.3%), and general patient satisfaction was high (9.0 ± 1.0 out of a maximum of 10). According to the professional's assessment, a pre‐implant augmentation procedure was associated with less favorable aesthetics of the mucosa.</p><p><b>Conclusion:</b> This study shows that the aesthetics of single‐tooth implants in the maxillary aesthetic zone appears to be independent of the implant neck designs applied but dependent on the need for pre‐implant surgery.</p></abstract></abstractGroup></contentMeta></header></component></istex:document></istex:metadataXml><mods version="3.6"><titleInfo lang="en"><title>Single‐Tooth Implants with Different Neck Designs: A Randomized Clinical Trial Evaluating the Aesthetic Outcome</title></titleInfo><titleInfo type="abbreviated" lang="en"><title>Single‐Tooth Implants in the Aesthetic Zone</title></titleInfo><titleInfo type="alternative" contentType="CDATA" lang="en"><title>Single‐Tooth Implants with Different Neck Designs: A Randomized Clinical Trial Evaluating the Aesthetic Outcome</title></titleInfo><name type="personal"><namePart type="given">Laurens</namePart><namePart type="family">den Hartog</namePart><namePart type="termsOfAddress">DDS, PhD</namePart><affiliation>Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, University Medical Center Groningen and University of Groningen, Groningen, the Netherlands;</affiliation><affiliation>E-mail: l.den.hartog@kchir.umcg.nl</affiliation><role><roleTerm type="text">author</roleTerm></role></name><name type="personal"><namePart type="given">Gerry M.</namePart><namePart type="family">Raghoebar</namePart><namePart type="termsOfAddress">DDS, MD, PhD</namePart><affiliation>Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, University Medical Center Groningen and University of Groningen, Groningen, the Netherlands;</affiliation><role><roleTerm type="text">author</roleTerm></role></name><name type="personal"><namePart type="given">James J. Huddleston</namePart><namePart type="family">Slater</namePart><namePart type="termsOfAddress">DDS, PhD</namePart><affiliation>Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery and Center for Dentistry and Oral Hygiene, Department of Oral Health Care and Clinical Epidemiology, University Medical Center Groningen and University of Groningen, Groningen, the Netherlands;</affiliation><role><roleTerm type="text">author</roleTerm></role></name><name type="personal"><namePart type="given">Kees</namePart><namePart type="family">Stellingsma</namePart><namePart type="termsOfAddress">DDS, PhD</namePart><affiliation>Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, University Medical Center Groningen and University of Groningen, Groningen, the Netherlands;</affiliation><role><roleTerm type="text">author</roleTerm></role></name><name type="personal"><namePart type="given">Arjan</namePart><namePart type="family">Vissink</namePart><namePart type="termsOfAddress">DDS, MD, PhD</namePart><affiliation>Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, University Medical Center Groningen and University of Groningen, Groningen, the Netherlands;</affiliation><role><roleTerm type="text">author</roleTerm></role></name><name type="personal"><namePart type="given">Henny J. A.</namePart><namePart type="family">Meijer</namePart><namePart type="termsOfAddress">DDS, PhD</namePart><affiliation>Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery and Center for Dentistry and Oral Hygiene, Department of Prosthodontics, University Medical Center Groningen and University of Groningen, Groningen, the Netherlands</affiliation><role><roleTerm type="text">author</roleTerm></role></name><typeOfResource>text</typeOfResource><genre type="article" displayLabel="article" authority="ISTEX" authorityURI="https://content-type.data.istex.fr" valueURI="https://content-type.data.istex.fr/ark:/67375/XTP-6N5SZHKN-D">article</genre><originInfo><publisher>Blackwell Publishing Ltd</publisher><place><placeTerm type="text">Oxford, UK</placeTerm></place><dateIssued encoding="w3cdtf">2013-06</dateIssued><copyrightDate encoding="w3cdtf">2013</copyrightDate></originInfo><language><languageTerm type="code" authority="rfc3066">en</languageTerm><languageTerm type="code" authority="iso639-2b">eng</languageTerm></language><physicalDescription><extent unit="figures">3</extent><extent unit="tables">4</extent><extent unit="formulas">0</extent><extent unit="references">33</extent><extent unit="linksCrossRef">0</extent><extent unit="words">6882</extent></physicalDescription><abstract>Aim: To evaluate the aesthetic outcome of single‐tooth implants in the aesthetic zone with different neck designs from a professional's and patient's perception.</abstract><abstract>Materials and Methods: Ninety‐three patients with a missing anterior tooth in the maxilla were randomly assigned to be treated with an implant with a smooth neck, a rough neck with grooves or a scalloped rough neck with grooves. Implants were installed in healed sites. One year after definitive crown placement (18 months post‐implant placement), photographs were taken and the aesthetic outcome was assessed according to two objective aesthetic indexes: pink esthetic score/white esthetic score (PES/WES) and implant crown aesthetic index (ICAI). A questionnaire was used to assess the aesthetic outcome and general satisfaction from a patient's perception. Standardized radiographs were taken to measure marginal bone level changes.</abstract><abstract>Results: One implant was lost. Although there was a significant difference in marginal bone loss between the different implant neck designs (smooth neck 1.19 ± 0.82 mm, rough neck 0.90 ± 0.57 mm, scalloped neck 2.01 ± 0.77 mm), there were no differences in aesthetic outcome. According to the professional's assessments using PES/WES and ICAI, 79.3% and 62% of the cases showed acceptable crown aesthetics, and 59.8% and 56.5% of the cases showed acceptable mucosa aesthetics. Overall, patients were satisfied about the aesthetics of the mucosa (81.5%) and crown (93.3%), and general patient satisfaction was high (9.0 ± 1.0 out of a maximum of 10). According to the professional's assessment, a pre‐implant augmentation procedure was associated with less favorable aesthetics of the mucosa.</abstract><abstract>Conclusion: This study shows that the aesthetics of single‐tooth implants in the maxillary aesthetic zone appears to be independent of the implant neck designs applied but dependent on the need for pre‐implant surgery.</abstract><subject lang="en"><genre>keywords</genre><topic>aesthetics</topic><topic>dental implant</topic><topic>esthetics</topic><topic>implant neck</topic><topic>single tooth</topic><topic>soft tissue</topic></subject><relatedItem type="host"><titleInfo><title>Clinical Implant Dentistry and Related Research</title></titleInfo><genre type="journal" authority="ISTEX" authorityURI="https://publication-type.data.istex.fr" valueURI="https://publication-type.data.istex.fr/ark:/67375/JMC-0GLKJH51-B">journal</genre><subject><genre>article-category</genre><topic>ARTICLE</topic></subject><identifier type="ISSN">1523-0899</identifier><identifier type="eISSN">1708-8208</identifier><identifier type="DOI">10.1111/(ISSN)1708-8208</identifier><identifier type="PublisherID">CID</identifier><part><date>2013</date><detail type="volume"><caption>vol.</caption><number>15</number></detail><detail type="issue"><caption>no.</caption><number>3</number></detail><extent unit="pages"><start>311</start><end>321</end><total>11</total></extent></part></relatedItem><identifier type="istex">1B37750592D53233A1F947C372676D0F89A7852F</identifier><identifier type="ark">ark:/67375/WNG-24V1WLL7-7</identifier><identifier type="DOI">10.1111/j.1708-8208.2011.00372.x</identifier><identifier type="ArticleID">CID372</identifier><accessCondition type="use and reproduction" contentType="copyright">Copyright © 2013 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.© 2011 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.</accessCondition><recordInfo><recordContentSource authority="ISTEX" authorityURI="https://loaded-corpus.data.istex.fr" valueURI="https://loaded-corpus.data.istex.fr/ark:/67375/XBH-L0C46X92-X">wiley</recordContentSource><recordOrigin>Blackwell Publishing Ltd</recordOrigin></recordInfo></mods><json:item><extension>json</extension><original>false</original><mimetype>application/json</mimetype><uri>https://api.istex.fr/document/1B37750592D53233A1F947C372676D0F89A7852F/metadata/json</uri></json:item></metadata><serie></serie></istex></record>Pour manipuler ce document sous Unix (Dilib)
EXPLOR_STEP=$WICRI_ROOT/Wicri/Santé/explor/EdenteV2/Data/Istex/Corpus
HfdSelect -h $EXPLOR_STEP/biblio.hfd -nk 000D46 | SxmlIndent | more
Ou
HfdSelect -h $EXPLOR_AREA/Data/Istex/Corpus/biblio.hfd -nk 000D46 | SxmlIndent | more
Pour mettre un lien sur cette page dans le réseau Wicri
{{Explor lien
|wiki= Wicri/Santé
|area= EdenteV2
|flux= Istex
|étape= Corpus
|type= RBID
|clé= ISTEX:1B37750592D53233A1F947C372676D0F89A7852F
|texte= Single‐Tooth Implants with Different Neck Designs: A Randomized Clinical Trial Evaluating the Aesthetic Outcome
}}
| This area was generated with Dilib version V0.6.32. |  |