Caroliene Meijndert

32 Chapter 2 Aesthetic index and patient satisfaction Mean scores of the ICAI were calculated at T 12 and T 120 ( Table 6 ). The mean total ICAI penalty score after 10 years was 5.8 with 59% of all cases rated as acceptable. There were no significant differences between the groups. The only significant diminution was found in the appreciation of the crowns (P = 0.001). Percentage of acceptable results decreased from 90% at T 12 to 82% at T 120 . Patients who received a new implant crown between T 12 and T 120 were included in this assessment. Mean scores of the patient satisfaction questionnaires were calculated at T 12 and at T 120 ( Table 7 ). Mean total overall satisfaction after 10 years was 8.6 with no significant difference between the groups and no significant difference with the overall satisfaction score after 1 year. Patients were least happy with the mucosal aspects of the implant site. Only 59.7% of the patients were completely satisfied with the mucosa at T 120 . Discussion Ten-year results of single tooth replacement with implant-supported restorations in the aesthetic region showed stable and healthy peri-implant tissues and satisfied patients. No relevant differences could be observed between an augmentation technique with chin bone, with chin bone plus a Bio-Gide® membrane (Bio-Gide®: Geistlich, Wolhusen, Switzerland) or with Bio-Oss® (Bio-Oss®: Geistlich, Wolhusen, Switzerland) plus a Bio- Gide® membrane. Implant survival rate of the total group after 10 years was 95.7%. Kuchler et al. (2016) presented 10-year results of the same implant system as used in the present study. Implant survival rate in their study was 100%. Other studies in the aesthetic region showed 100% (Jemt, 2008; Gotfredsen, 2012) and 93.2% (Schropp & Isidor, 2015). Percentages in these studies are hard to compare, because other implant systems were used and different surgical procedures were performed, e.g. direct placement, augmented sites and non-augmented sites. Nevertheless, implant survival rates are high after a long- term follow up and comparable to the survivalrate in the current study. Crown survival rate was 87.9%, which is also comparable to the results reported in the literature (Jemt, 2008; Gotfredsen, 2012). Comparison with the study of Jung et al. (2013), with different augmentation procedures in a variety of regions, learned that long-term implant survival is high and independent on specific augmentation procedures. The results are also not different (with respect to implant survival as well as marginal bone loss) with a control group in which no augmentation procedure was performed. No studies were found with which the specific augmentation procedures in the aesthetic region could be compared.