Caroliene Meijndert

73 Bone level tapered implants in the maxillary aesthetic zone stable marginal bone levels, as well as, or maybe because of it, stable peri-implant soft tissues after one year. The present study’s overall patient satisfaction score resembles those mentioned by Zuiderveld et al.(2019) and Lowy et al.(2019): the participants were more satisfied with the end result than the professional observers. Perhaps this is because the patients’ pre- treatment situation is still fresh in their minds and express satisfaction as oral wellbeing, function and aesthetics in comparison to the pre-treatment situation, whereas the professionals use an index and might be more critical about the smaller defaults than the participants. However, both are consistent in liking the whites better than the pinks, as can be seen on comparing the answers to the questionnaire with the PES and WES outcomes. Although this study’s overall results were good, two major limitations need to be mentioned and addressed in future research. First, the study did not compare the performance of a tapered implant to the performance of a cylindrical implant, preferable from the same brand, by means of a randomized controlled trial. Comparisons were made with other studies addressing a tapered implant design. Second, although acknowledging the importance of the facial bone thickness, the buccal bone thickness was not measured by means of cone beam computed tomography to monitor the original bone, the augmented bone and its stability over time. Conclusion Within the limitations of the study, it can be concluded from a one-year follow-up that treatment with the bone level tapered implant system resulted in good implant stability, healthy peri-implant hard and soft tissues, satisfying esthetics and good patient-centered outcomes. 4