Assessment and aesthetic impact of a long-term vertical discrepancy between the single anterior maxillary implant-supported crown and adjacent teeth: A retrospective cross-sectional study.

OBJECTIVES: To assess the vertical discrepancy between implant-supported crowns and adjacent teeth in the maxillary anterior region at least 8 years after implant placement and to evaluate the influence of this discrepancy on the level of aesthetic awareness of patients. MATERIAL AND METHODS: The sample consisted of 23 adult individuals evaluated at least 8 years after placement of an implant-supported central or lateral single tooth-fixed partial denture. Patients had their crowns delivered at a mean age of 47.8 years (range: 18.9-65.8). The vertical discrepancy was measured by comparing initial and follow-up periapical radiographs using the implant as a stable structure. The patients' satisfaction with their anterior teeth condition and awareness of the possible vertical problem were evaluated using a questionnaire. The aesthetic outcome and patient awareness were related to the objective measurement of the vertical discrepancy. RESULTS: The implant showed a mean infraocclusion of 0.62 mm (range: 0.15-1.63 mm). The vertical discrepancy was not associated with the patient's gender, age at implant placement, and duration between initial and recall radiograph. Patients were generally satisfied with the long-term aesthetic outcome of their smile (mean: 3.9 on a 1-5 scale, 1 unsatisfied, and 5 completely satisfied). Out of 23 patients, 8 noticed the implant infraocclusion and 4 of them found the problem severe enough to be willing to improve the situation. The amount of vertical discrepancy was not associated with the patient's perception of the discrepancy and the pink aesthetic score. CONCLUSION: Implant-supported crowns in the anterior region may suffer infraocclusion over the long term. The amount of vertical discrepancy was not dependent on the gender and age of the patient. Patients were generally satisfied with the aesthetic result of the restoration. The amount of vertical discrepancy, at least in the range we have measured, was not perceived by the patients as a complication.

Dental age assessment on panoramic radiographs: Comparison between two generations of young Finnish subjects.

OBJECTIVE: To analyse the accuracy of a meta-analysis-based dental age assessment (DAA) method in Finnish paediatric patients and to compare the dental development between two generations of Finnish children. METHODS: Panoramic radiographs of Finnish Caucasian healthy children from two generations (early: born 1981-1984; subsequent: born 1996-2008) were analysed. All developing teeth on the left maxilla and mandible as well as the third permanent molars were analysed following Demirjian's classification. For each patient, dental age was calculated and compared with chronological age. Dental maturation patterns between the two groups were compared. RESULTS: The study included 200 Finnish Caucasian healthy children from two generations (early: aged 7-13 years; subsequent: aged 6-15 years). In the early generation, DAA underestimated the chronological age by a mean of 3.15 years. The underestimation was only 0.11 years in patients < 10 years, but 3.86 years in patients ≥ 10 years. In the subsequent generation, the dental age was overestimated by a mean of 0.34 years; by 0.40 years in patients < 10 years and by 0.08 years in patients ≥ 10 years. CONCLUSIONS: The present DAA method is applicable to current Finnish children. Differences in dental development between two generations of Finnish children were detected.

Dental age assessment on panoramic radiographs in a Swiss population: a validation study of two prediction models.

OBJECTIVES: Dental age assessment methods are widely used for age estimation. This study aimed to analyse the accuracy of a meta-analysis method to estimate dental age in Swiss individuals and to detect potential limitations of the method. Precision of repeated tooth staging using Demirjian's classification on maxillary and mandibular teeth was also assessed. METHODS: Panoramic radiographs of 50 Swiss white healthy children were analysed. Developing teeth on the left maxilla and mandible and all third permanent molars were staged following Demirjian's classification. Dental age was calculated for each subject, using a random effects model and a fixed effect model, and compared with chronological age. RESULTS: The mean error of the dental age ranged between -3 and +1 months for both the calculation models. Dental age calculated with the fixed effect model overestimated the age of the subjects (average + 0.10 y, ranging from -1.95 y to +2.16 y) compared with their chronological age, whereas the random effects model underestimated the age (average -0.32 y, ranging from -2.24 y to +1.61 y). CONCLUSIONS: Demirjian's method allowed a precise repeated staging of maxillary and mandibular developing teeth. For both calculation models, dental age correlated well, on average, with chronological age of Swiss subjects younger than 12 years. The random effects model showed a better accuracy for these subjects than the fixed effect model. However, both models underestimated the chronological age in subjects older than 12 years.

Assessment of trabecular pattern on periapical and panoramic radiographs: a pilot study.

OBJECTIVE: This methodological study aimed to determine whether the mandibular trabecular bone assessment from panoramic radiographs, using a visual index, corresponds to the evaluation obtained from periapical radiographs. MATERIAL AND METHODS: A panoramic radiograph and corresponding periapical radiographs of the region of the lower premolars and molars were collected from each of 32 patients (mean age 18.5 +/- 5.5 years). Two calibrated observers assessed randomly the interdental sites between the first molar and second premolar and between the two premolars on all the radiographs using a visual index. Evaluations were repeated with an interval of 60 days. The results of the repeated evaluations were used to assess intra- and inter-observer agreements, employing Kappa statistics. Spearman's correlation was used to determine the association between assessments of panoramic and periapical radiographs. RESULTS: In total, 79 interdental sites were evaluated on the panoramic and periapical radiographs. The visual analysis of periapical radiographs revealed intra-observer agreements of 0.88 for observer 1 and 0.93 for observer 2, and an inter-observer agreement of 0.82. The intra-observer agreement for panoramic radiographs was 0.79 and 0.83 for observers 1 and 2, respectively, and the inter-observer agreement was 0.79. A substantial correlation was found between periapical and panoramic radiographs (rho = 0.737, p = 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Although panoramic radiographs are less reliable than periapical radiographs, they can be used for assessment of the trabecular bone pattern with the aid of a visual index. Training on the method is recommended to obtain results with a high reproducibility.