Objective: To evaluate the pink and white esthetics of conventional and socket shield technique (SST) immediate implant restoration. Methods: Thirty volunteers were recruited according to preset criteria, and were assigned to 3 groups. Natural teeth group (ten undergraduates or postgraduates from Peking University School and Hospital of Stomatology in January 2020, n=10): all volunteers' maxillary anterior teeth were natural teeth with healthy gingiva, and none of the teeth were restored by crowns or composite. Conventional group and SST group (patients had a maxillary central incisor immediate implant placed in Department of Prosthodontics, Peking University School and Hospital of Stomatology during October 2016 to January 2021, n=10 for each group): the volunteer had an unrestored natural maxillary central incisor, and the contralateral maxillary central incisor was restored by conventional or SST immediate implant placement, temporization and all ceramic final restoration, photos were taken 12 months post-surgery. Three groups of evaluators namely layperson (staff from Second Clinical Division of Peking University School and Hospital of Stomatology and 2 family members, n=10), dental students (class 2015 undergraduates from Peking University School and Hospital of Stomatology, n=10) and prosthodontists (from Department of Prosthodontics, Peking University School and Hospital of Stomatology, n=10) were invited to assess the esthetics using pink esthetic score (PES) and white esthetic score (WES). The results were statistically analyzed. Results: PES and WES of natural teeth group [9(8, 10) and 8(7, 10)] were significantly higher than conventional group [7(6,8) and 7(6,9)] (H=287.08, 132.79,P<0.01) and SST group [7(6, 9) and 8(7, 9)] (H=216.01, 101.21, P<0.01). SST group yielded higher PES than the conventional group (H=-71.06, P<0.01), yet had similar WES (H=-31.57, P>0.05). Dental students had significant lower PES and WES than prosthodontists (H=-120.90, -218.86, P<0.01) and layperson (H=-109.55, 134.97, P<0.01). Prosthodontists and layperson got similar PES (H=-11.36, P>0.05), however yielded different WES (H=-83.89, P<0.01). Conclusions: SST immediate implant placement obtained better pink esthetics than conventional protocol 12-month after implant surgery, profession may have significant impact on evaluators during pink and white esthetic evaluation.
目的： 通过视觉评价的方式比较上前牙美学区常规和牙根屏障技术（socket shield technique，SST）即刻种植修复的短期美学效果，为临床提供参考。 方法： 拍摄3组志愿者上前牙照片，天然牙组志愿者（北京大学口腔医学院·口腔医院本科生或研究生，2020年1月招募，10名）上前牙均为天然牙；常规组和SST组志愿者（2016年10月至2021年1月于北京大学口腔医学院·口腔医院修复科完成即刻种植修复的患者，每组10例）1颗上颌中切牙分别为常规即刻种植术后和SST即刻种植术后12个月，另1颗为天然牙。请非口腔专业人员（北京大学口腔医院·口腔医院第二门诊部工作人员及2名职工家属）、口腔医学生（北京大学口腔医学院·口腔医院2015级口腔医学专业本科生）、修复医师（北京大学口腔医学院·口腔医院口腔修复专业医师）各10名对照片上中切牙（天然牙组上颌右侧中切牙、常规组和SST组种植修复体）进行粉色美学指数（pink esthetic score，PES）和白色美学指数（white esthetic score，WES）评分。 结果： 天然牙组PES和WES总分［9（8，10）和8（7，10）分］均显著高于常规组［7（6，8）和7（6，9）分］（H=287.08、132.79，P<0.01）和SST组［7（6，9）和8（7，9）分］（H=216.01、101.21，P<0.01），SST组PES总分显著高于常规组（H=-71.06，P<0.01），常规组与SST组WES总分差异无统计学意义（H=-31.57，P>0.05）。口腔医学生PES和WES总分均显著低于修复医师（H=-120.90、-218.86，P<0.01）和非口腔专业人员（H=-109.55、134.97，P<0.01）；修复医师与非口腔专业人员PES总分相近（H=-11.36，P>0.05），而WES总分差异有统计学意义（H=-83.89，P<0.01）。 结论： SST即刻种植术后12个月可获得比常规即刻种植更好的粉色美学效果，评分人专业背景可显著影响粉白美学评分结果。.