Zhonghua Kou Qiang Yi Xue Za Zhi. 2021 Apr 9;56(4):324-328. doi: 10.3760/cma.j.cn112144-20200709-00405.
ABSTRACT
Objective: To test the reproducibility of the visual analogue scale (VAS) used in the evaluation of the esthetic effect of anterior dental implants, and to explore the factors that affect the correlation between VAS and pink esthetic score/white esthetic score (PES/WES). Methods: From January 2018 to August 2019, a total of 108 doctors and patients were recruited in the Department of Prosthodontics, Implantology and Fourth Clinical Division of Peking University School and Hospital of Stomatology. Among them, there were 35 dental implant specialists who were familiar with PES/WES [implant specialist group, 25 males, 10 females, (37.3±4.5) years old], 34 dentists who were not familiar with PES/WES [dentist group, specialized in Prosthodontics, Periodontology, Orthodontics, and Oral Maxillofacial Surgery, 24 males, 10 females, (36.1±4.2) years old], 39 patients [patient group, 28 males, 11 females, (45.4±8.3) years old]. Twenty oral pictures of patients [12 males, 8 females, (43.7±6.4) years old] treated in the Department of Prosthodontics, Peking University School and Hospital of Stomatology from December 2016 to December 2017 were taken for single implant restoration for esthetic evaluation with VAS. Score 0 for evaluation of not beautiful and score 10 for very beautiful. Re-evaluation of the same 20 pictures with VAS after 1 month, and perform repeatability evaluation of VAS using chi-square test were conducted. At the same time, 13 implant specialists were randomly selected, to score the same photos with PES/WES. The PES scoring elements were the fullness of the mesial gingival papilla, the fullness of the distal gingival papilla, the curvature of the gingival margin, the protrusion of the root surface, the color and the texture of the soft tissue. The scoring elements of WES were crown shape, crown contour, crown color, surface texture, transparency and individual characteristics in order. Pearson correlation analysis was used to evaluate the correlation between the score of VAS and PES/WES. And the influence of the group on the correlation between PES/WES and VAS was analyzed. Results: The PES score was 7.5±1.8, and the WES score was 7.6±1.9 and the total score was 15.1±3.4. The VAS score of the implant specialist group was 6.8±1.8. The repeatability test of the two VAS results in the patient group was not statistically significant (Kappa=0.012, P>0.05); the two VAS results of the implant specialist group and the dentist group both had good repeatability (Kappa=0.727 and 0.556, P<0.01). The VAS score was weakly correlated with the total PES/WES score (r=0.27, P<0.01). The VAS score was correlated with the score elements in PES/WES (P<0.01), and the color (r=0.20) and shape (r=0.22) of the crown were the larger correlation coefficients. The correlation coefficients between the VAS score and the PES/WES scoring system decreased among the implant specialist group (r=0.49, moderate correlation), the dentist group (r=0.25, weak correlation) and the patient group (r=0.12, P>0.05). Conclusions: The consistency of VAS and PES/WES is affected by the cognition of the scorer. The combination of the two scoring systems is feasible and necessary for physicians to evaluate the overall esthetic effect of implant restoration.
PMID:33832032 | DOI:10.3760/cma.j.cn112144-20200709-00405
