Comparison of Single-Tooth Dental Implants with Contralateral Teeth in Terms of Clinical, Radiographic, Aesthetic and Patient Satisfaction

Merve Küçükoglu Çolak; Murat İnanç Cengiz

Makale detayları

Comparison of Single-Tooth Dental Implants with Contralateral Teeth in Terms of Clinical, Radiographic, Aesthetic and Patient Satisfaction

Yazarlar:

Merve Küçükoglu Çolak | Murat İnanç Cengiz

Yayıncı:

Ondokuz Mayıs University

Ana Başlıklar:

Diş Hekimliği

Dergi:

Türk Diş Hekimliği Araştırma Dergisi Vol.2 Issue 2, pp.179-190

Belge Tipi:

Makale

Yayın Tarihi:

10/2023

Belge Dili:

Türkçe

Document ID (Org No.):

2001301678

pISSN:

2822-4310

Anahtar kelimeler:

Özet:

 Aim: The aim of this study is to compare dental implants applied in single tooth deficiencies in the maxilla anterior region with contralateral teeth clinically, radiographically, aesthetically and evaluate patient satisfaction Materials and Methods: In our study, 40 patients with contralateral teeth who underwent dental implant application in a single missing tooth between 2010-2020 were included. During the routine controls of the patients, peri-implant and periodontal probing depth PD, plaque index PI and gingival index GI, the presence of bleeding BOP on probing, and the amount of gingival recession GR were recorded. Patient satisfaction and aesthetic evaluation were performed by asking each patient questions on the Visual Analog Scale VAS. The Complex aesthetic index CEİ was used to evaluate the aesthetics of the implant-supported restoration. Results: There was no significant difference in clinical parameters tooth and implant regions. Statistically significant excess probing depth was detected in the implant area. The amount of keratinized gingiva was statistically significantly higher in the tooth region.. In the evaluation of implant restorations with CEİ, it was mostly observed as risky but clinically acceptable. The mean satisfaction score was 8.441.11. It was observed that the majority of the patients had a significantly higher treatment satisfaction score. Conclusion: There was no significant difference in periodonal indices between both region. There are differences in the two regions in terms of the amount of keratinized gingiva and the probing depth of the pocket. Aesthetically, implantsupported prostheses are acceptable. Patients are satisfied with the procedure and recommend it.

 Aim: The aim of this study is to compare dental implants applied in single tooth deficiencies in the maxilla anterior region with contralateral teeth clinically, radiographically, aesthetically and evaluate patient satisfaction Materials and Methods: In our study, 40 patients with contralateral teeth who underwent dental implant application in a single missing tooth between 2010-2020 were included. During the routine controls of the patients, peri-implant and periodontal probing depth PD, plaque index PI and gingival index GI, the presence of bleeding BOP on probing, and the amount of gingival recession GR were recorded. Patient satisfaction and aesthetic evaluation were performed by asking each patient questions on the Visual Analog Scale VAS. The Complex aesthetic index CEİ was used to evaluate the aesthetics of the implant-supported restoration. Results: There was no significant difference in clinical parameters tooth and implant regions. Statistically significant excess probing depth was detected in the implant area. The amount of keratinized gingiva was statistically significantly higher in the tooth region.. In the evaluation of implant restorations with CEİ, it was mostly observed as risky but clinically acceptable. The mean satisfaction score was 8.441.11. It was observed that the majority of the patients had a significantly higher treatment satisfaction score. Conclusion: There was no significant difference in periodonal indices between both region. There are differences in the two regions in terms of the amount of keratinized gingiva and the probing depth of the pocket. Aesthetically, implantsupported prostheses are acceptable. Patients are satisfied with the procedure and recommend it.

 Aim: The aim of this study is to compare dental implants applied in single tooth deficiencies in the maxilla anterior region with contralateral teeth clinically, radiographically, aesthetically and evaluate patient satisfaction Materials and Methods: In our study, 40 patients with contralateral teeth who underwent dental implant application in a single missing tooth between 2010-2020 were included. During the routine controls of the patients, peri-implant and periodontal probing depth PD, plaque index PI and gingival index GI, the presence of bleeding BOP on probing, and the amount of gingival recession GR were recorded. Patient satisfaction and aesthetic evaluation were performed by asking each patient questions on the Visual Analog Scale VAS. The Complex aesthetic index CEİ was used to evaluate the aesthetics of the implant-supported restoration. Results: There was no significant difference in clinical parameters tooth and implant regions. Statistically significant excess probing depth was detected in the implant area. The amount of keratinized gingiva was statistically significantly higher in the tooth region.. In the evaluation of implant restorations with CEİ, it was mostly observed as risky but clinically acceptable. The mean satisfaction score was 8.441.11. It was observed that the majority of the patients had a significantly higher treatment satisfaction score. Conclusion: There was no significant difference in periodonal indices between both region. There are differences in the two regions in terms of the amount of keratinized gingiva and the probing depth of the pocket. Aesthetically, implantsupported prostheses are acceptable. Patients are satisfied with the procedure and recommend it.

 Amaç: Çalışmamızın amacı; maksilla anterior bölge tek diş eksikliklerinde uygulanan dental implantları kontralateral dişlerle klinik, radyografik ve estetik olarak karşılaştırmak ve hasta memnuniyetini değerlendirmektedir. Gereç ve Yöntem: Çalışmamıza fakültemizde 2010-2020 yılları arasında tek diş eksikliğinde dental implant uygulaması yapılmış ve kontralateral dişi mevcut olan 40 hasta dahil edilmiştir. Hastaların rutin kontrolleri sırasında peri-implant ve periodontal sondlama derinliği PD, plak indeksi PI ve gingival indeks GI değerleri, sondlamada kanama SK varlığı, dişeti çekilmesi DÇ miktarı kaydedilmiştir. Her hastaya görsel analog skala VAS, Visual Analog Scale soruları yönelterek hasta memnuniyeti ve estetik değerlendirme gerçekleştirilmiştir. İmplant destekli restorasyonun estetiğini değerlendirmek içinde de Komplex estetik indeks KEİ kullanılmıştır. Bulgular: Diş ve implant bölgelerinde klinik parametreler açısından anlamlı fark görülmemiştir. İmplant bölgesinde istatiksel olarak anlamlı olarak fazla sondalama derinliği tespit edilmiştir. Keratinize diş eti miktarı ise diş bölgesinde istatiksel olarak anlamlı derecede daha fazla olduğu gözlemlenmiştir. İmplant üstü restorasyonların KEİ ile değerlendirilmesinde ise çoğunlukla riskli ama klinik olarak kabul edilebilir olarak gözlenmiştir. Hastaların ortalama memnuniyet skoru 8,441.11dir. Hastaların büyük çoğunluğu tedaviden memnuniyet skorunun anlamlı olarak yüksek olduğu görülmüştür. Sonuç: İmplant ve diş bölgesi arasında periodonal indekslerde anlamlı farklılık bulunamıştır. Keratinize diş eti miktarı ve cep derinliği açısından iki bölgede farklılıklar mevcuttur. Estetik olarak implant üstü protezler kabul edilebilir düzeydedir. Hastalar uygulanan tedaviden memnun ve tedaviyi tavsiye etmektedirler.

Makale detayları

Comparison of Single-Tooth Dental Implants with Contralateral Teeth in Terms of Clinical, Radiographic, Aesthetic and Patient Satisfaction

Yazarlar:

Merve Küçükoglu Çolak | Murat İnanç Cengiz

Yayıncı:

Ondokuz Mayıs University

Ana Başlıklar:

Diş Hekimliği

Dergi:

Türk Diş Hekimliği Araştırma Dergisi Vol.2 Issue 2, pp.179-190

Belge Tipi:

Makale

Yayın Tarihi:

10/2023

Belge Dili:

Türkçe

Document ID (Org No.):

2001301678

pISSN:

2822-4310

Dental Implant;

Aesthetics

KEI

Patient Satisfaction;

VASDental İmplant

estetik

KEİ

hasta memnuniyeti

VAS

Sayı

Makale detayları

Yazarlar: Merve Küçükoglu Çolak | Murat İnanç Cengiz

Yayıncı: Ondokuz Mayıs University

Ana Başlıklar: Diş Hekimliği

Dergi: Türk Diş Hekimliği Araştırma Dergisi Vol.2 Issue 2, pp.179-190

Belge Tipi: Makale

Yayın Tarihi: 10/2023

Belge Dili: Türkçe

Document ID (Org No.): 2001301678

pISSN: 2822-4310

Sayı

Yazarlar:

Merve Küçükoglu Çolak | Murat İnanç Cengiz

Yayıncı:

Ondokuz Mayıs University

Ana Başlıklar:

Diş Hekimliği

Dergi:

Türk Diş Hekimliği Araştırma Dergisi Vol.2 Issue 2, pp.179-190

Belge Tipi:

Makale

Yayın Tarihi:

10/2023

Belge Dili:

Türkçe

Document ID (Org No.):

2001301678

pISSN:

2822-4310