Condicionamento gengival em coroas provisórias sobre implantes em área estética: um ensaio clínico
BACKGROUND: The esthetic outcome is one of the criteria used to build a definition of success in implant-supported restorations. The esthetic criteria of professionals for these characteristics vary depending on their area of specialization and clinical experience. The aim of this study is to mea...
Na minha lista:
| Autor principal: | |
|---|---|
| Outros Autores: | |
| Formato: | Dissertação |
| Idioma: | pt_BR |
| Publicado em: |
Brasil
|
| Assuntos: | |
| Endereço do item: | https://repositorio.ufrn.br/jspui/handle/123456789/28298 |
| Tags: |
Adicionar Tag
Sem tags, seja o primeiro a adicionar uma tag!
|
| Resumo: | BACKGROUND: The esthetic outcome is one of the criteria used to build a
definition of success in implant-supported restorations. The esthetic criteria of
professionals for these characteristics vary depending on their area of specialization
and clinical experience. The aim of this study is to measure the influence of soft tissue
conditioning on esthetic outcome as well as to evaluate the perception of different
specialties in the result of this intervention in provisional crowns on single implants in
the smile zone. METHODS: Ten patients underwent an implant placement surgery to
insert a morse tapered implant. All patients received an acrylic resin implantsupported provisional crown. The soft tissue conditioning process was performed with
a non-surgical technique of gradual pressure. Photographs of the rehabilitated region
were taken at the first provisional crown insertion and at the last session of soft tissue
management. Three specialists and a general practitioner were selected as blinded
examiners and applied the Pink Esthetic Score (PES) based on the criteria observed in
the photographs. Each examiner repeated the PES three times within three days
between analyses. Each evaluation had a different sequence of photos. The results
were analyzed using the Intraclass Correlation Coefficient (ICC), the nonparametric
Wilcoxon signed-rank test, and the Pearson’s chi-square test. RESULTS: The
evaluators had a mean agreement for PES values and all the constituent criteria
(between 40% and 75%), in which the general practitioner showed the greater degree
of disagreement in all parameters. The prosthodontist gave the lowest scores for the
evaluations while the general practitioner and the periodontist presented similar
results (highest scores) for the before and after scores. There was a significant
difference between the evaluation of PES before and after gingival conditioning for
all evaluators (p <0.05), indicating that there was an improvement in aesthetics after
gingival conditioning. CONCLUSION: Soft tissue conditioning positively influences
the PES score and its constituent parameters and this difference could be noticed by
all the evaluators. |
|---|