Impact of administration mode on Oro-facial Appearance assessment using the Oro-facial Esthetic Scale.

BACKGROUND: Oro-facial Appearance is increasingly recognised as an important component of patient-reported outcomes in dentistry. While the Oro-facial Esthetic Scale (OES) has sufficient psychometric properties to characterise dental patient's global assessment of Oro-facial Appearance, the equivalence of alternative methods of administration has not been demonstrated so far. OBJECTIVE: Aim of this study was to investigate whether and to what extent method of administration affects OES scores. METHODS: Participants were recruited as convenience sample of 42 adult dental patients registered for a regular recall visit and with no actual need of dental interventions. Oro-facial Appearance was assessed using the German version of the OES applying three methods of administration: (a) face-to-face interview, (b) self-administered questionnaire and (c) telephone interview, in a randomised order with a period of about one week between assessments. RESULTS: Oro-facial Esthetic Scale summary scores did not differ substantially or statistically significantly between the different methods of administration (two-way ANOVA; P = 0.209). Intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC) for pairwise comparisons of administration modes ranged from 0.67 to 0.84 indicating fair to excellent test-retest reliability. Internal consistency was satisfactory with lower limits of the 95% confidence interval (CI) of Cronbach's alpha ranging from 0.82 to 0.88 for the administration modes. Correlations of the OES summary score with a single item assessing global Oro-facial Appearance supported convergent validity with lower limits of the CI of the correlation coefficients ranging between 0.58 and 0.75. CONCLUSION: The administration mode has no significant impact on Oro-facial Appearance assessment when using the OES.

Peri-implant bone loss of dental implants with platform-switching design after 5 years of loading: a cross-sectional study.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this cross-sectional study was to estimate bone loss of implants with platform-switching design and analyze possible risk indicators after 5 years of loading in a multi-centered private practice network. METHOD AND MATERIALS: Peri-implant bone loss was measured radiographically as the distance from the implant shoulder to the mesial and distal alveolar crest, respectively. Risk factor analysis for marginal bone loss included type of implant prosthetic treatment concept and dental status of the opposite arch. RESULTS: A total of 316 implants in 98 study patients after 5 years of loading were examined. The overall mean value for radiographic bone loss was 1.02 mm (SD ± 1.25 mm, 95% CI 0.90- 1.14). Correlation analyses indicated a strong association of peri-implant bone loss > 2 mm for removable implant-retained prostheses with an odds ratio of 53.8. CONCLUSION: The 5-year-results of the study show clinically acceptable values of mean bone loss after 5 years of loading. Implant-supported removable prostheses seem to be a strong co-factor for extensive bone level changes compared to fixed reconstructions. However, these results have to be considered for evaluation of the included special cohort under private dental office conditions.