These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.


Pubmed for Handhelds

PUBMED FOR HANDHELDS

Search MEDLINE/PubMed

  • Title: Reproducibility of the pink esthetic score--rating soft tissue esthetics around single-implant restorations with regard to dental observer specialization.
    Author: Gehrke P, Lobert M, Dhom G.
    Journal: J Esthet Restor Dent; 2008; 20(6):375-84; discussion 385. PubMed ID: 19120783.
    Abstract:
    PURPOSE: The pink esthetic score (PES) evaluates the esthetic outcome of soft tissue around implant-supported single crowns in the anterior zone by awarding seven points for the mesial and distal papilla, soft-tissue level, soft-tissue contour, soft-tissue color, soft-tissue texture, and alveolar process deficiency. The aim of this study was to measure the reproducibility of the PES and assess the influence exerted by the examiner's degree of dental specialization. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Fifteen examiners (three general dentists, three oral maxillofacial surgeons, three orthodontists, three postgraduate students in implant dentistry, and three lay people) applied the PES to 30 implant-supported single restorations twice at an interval of 4 weeks. Using a 0-1-2 scoring system, 0 being the lowest, 2 being the highest value, the maximum achievable PES was 14. At the second assessment, the photographs were scored in reverse order. Differences between the two assessments were evaluated with the Spearman's rank correlation coefficient (R). The Wilcoxon signed-rank test was used for comparisons of differences between the ratings. A significance level of p < 0.05 was chosen for both tests. RESULTS: Observer results indicated that the agreement between the first and second rating for all occupational groups was 70.5%, with a broad correlation between the two ratings and a high statistical significance (Spearman's R = 0.58, p = 0; Wilcoxon T = 163,182, Z = 3.383599, p = 0.000716). The most agreement between the first and second rating was obtained by orthodontists with 73.5% (R = 0.67), and the least by lay people 65.9% (R = 0.50). Very poor and very esthetic restorations showed the smallest deviations. Orthodontists were found to have assigned significantly poorer ratings than any other group. The assessment of postgraduate students and laypersons were the most favorable. CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE: The PES allows for a more objective appraisal of the esthetic short- and long-term results of various surgical and prosthetic implant procedures. It reproducibly evaluates the peri-implant soft tissue around single-implant restorations and results in good intra-examiner agreement. However, an effect of observer specialization on rating soft-tissue esthetics can be shown.
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [New Search]