TABLE 6.
Studies included in the analysis for esthetic outcomes
| Author/year | Design | Location | Edentulism | Type of surgery | No. of patients/implants | No. implants/patient | Observation period | Instruments | Studied outcomes |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Fürhauser et al/2015 | Retrospective study | AZ | SI | s‐CAIS | 27/27 | 1 | 27.6 mo |
1. PES 2. Accuracy of placement |
1. Higher deviation between planned and placed implant position correlated with lower PES. |
| Kuo et al/2021 | Case Series | AZ | SI, PE | d‐CAIS | 10/10 | 1 | 12 mo | 1. PES/WES | Patients were satisfied with implant therapy’s function and esthetic outcome in the esthetic zone. |
| Lerner et al/2020 | Retrospective study | AZ, PS | PE, FE | s‐CAIS | 12/110 | 9.17 | 12 mo |
1. Patient satisfaction questionnaire (a) Overall, how satisfied are you with the treatment received? (b) Are you satisfied with the function of your implant supported restorations? (c) Are you satisfied with the esthetics of your implant‐supported restorations? (d) Are you satisfied with the clean ability of your implant‐supported restorations? |
1. Soft‐tissue was stable in all patients and showed satisfactory esthetic results. 2. Complete‐arch fixed reconstruction by means of guided surgery and immediate loading of implants placed in fresh extraction sockets resulted in stable tissue outcomes and esthetics |
Abbreviations: AZ, esthetic zone; d‐CAIS, dynamic computer‐assisted implant surgery; FE, fully edentulous; PE, partially edentulous; PES, pink esthetic score; PS, posterior; s‐CAIS, static computer‐assisted implant surgery; SI, single implants; WES, white esthetic score.