Cross-sectional analysis identifies esthetic risk factors in dental implants, suggesting implications for patient satisfaction.
Background: The esthetic component is critical for the successful outcome and patient satisfaction regarding implant-prosthetic therapy. A comprehensive evaluation of esthetic risk helps to clinicians for planning treatments that not only restore dental function but also enhance the patient’s overall appearance and improve patients satisfaction. Therefore, the primary objective of this study was to assess the factors related to moderate and high esthetic risk in patients undergoing dental implant treatment. Methodology: This cross-sectional study was conducted in the Department of Periodontology, ACPM Dental College, Dhule. A total of 40 patients undergoing implant treatment were included based on specific inclusion and exclusion criteria. In the present study, the dental practitioner assessed various factors influencing esthetic outcomes, including tooth position, root position of adjacent teeth, periodontium biotype, tooth shape, smile line, implant site anatomy, and implant positioning. Risk assessment involved comparing these factors to identify the most influential predictors for achieving high esthetic outcomes. Results: In the present study, a total of 40 patients were selected, with 26 being male and 14 female. Out of the 26 male participants, 20 were categorized as high-risk, indicating that males were 0.25 times as likely to be at high risk compared to female patients. Male patients over the age of 40 were found to be at a higher risk of adverse esthetic outcomes. The highest predictive factors for high esthetic risk assessment (ERA) were the shape of the tooth crown (odd ratio [OR] =5.57), medical status (OR = 1.29), and the presence of a soft-tissue anatomy defect (OR = 13.0). Conclusion: The use of the ERA tool helps dentists and patients for achieving the effect outcomes and allow for informed decision-making on treatment options.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Shiggaon et al. (2025) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: