ライフサイエンスコーパス: esthetic

1 dimensions showed negative correlation with esthetics.

2 ngival enlargement affecting mastication and esthetics.

3 treatment option for enhancement of implant esthetics.

4 velopmental anomalies affecting function and esthetics.

5 leviate root surface sensitivity and improve esthetics.

6 ridge collapse can significantly compromise esthetics.

7 revent ridge collapse and ultimately improve esthetics.

8 cal concern affecting both functionality and esthetics.

9 veneered zirconia, while providing necessary esthetics.

10 ssion remains an important problem in dental esthetics.

11 occlusion for nutrition intake, and improve esthetics.

12 eplace missing teeth to provide function and esthetics.

13 ectomy, which provided improved function and esthetics.

14 ion (GR) defects and the associated reported esthetic and functional alterations; and 2) evaluate whi

15 alignment, thereby enabling a more favorable esthetic and functional prosthesis.

16 3) peri-implant marginal bone loss (MBL); 4) esthetic and periodontal parameters; and 5) patient sati

17 At baseline, 6 mo, and 1 y clinical, esthetic and radiographic parameters were assessed.

18 nto widespread use because of their superior esthetics and chemical inertness.

19 ning of the alveolar ridge, which compromise esthetics and complicate restoration.

20 socket anatomy can significantly compromise esthetics and motility after enucleation.

21 nts can predictably reconstruct function and esthetics and seemed to maintain stable bone volume arou

22 In addition to their unfavorable effect on esthetics and self-esteem, these conditions also are ass

23 Esthetics and the health of oral implants are based upon

24 -reported satisfaction, clinical rankings of esthetics, and control and historical RC results reporte

25 The cleansibility, esthetics, and mechanical properties of the restoration

26 with a coronally advanced flap (CAF) on CDH, esthetics, and oral health-related quality of life (OHRQ

27 35 panelists considered the control of pain, esthetics, and patient satisfaction to be "extremely imp

28 Absence of pain, esthetics, and patient satisfaction were outcome measure

29 anomalies can be corrected so that function, esthetics, and the sense of well-being are restored in a

30 ctions on biocompatibility, curing behavior, esthetics, and ultimate material properties.

31 ted low morbidity and high satisfaction with esthetic appearance for both procedures (P >0.05).

32 atients' perceptions regarding morbidity and esthetic appearance were also evaluated.

33 eatment with this graft may result in better esthetic appearance.

34 ion of treatment plans may be necessary when esthetics are critical for success.

35 roximal papilla between adjacent implants in esthetic areas of the mouth.

36 ight of papilla between adjacent implants in esthetic areas, and the incidence was greater when verti

37 d not consider patient-reported outcomes and esthetics as part of the overall treatment success asses

38 res, correlated with the value of the visual esthetic attributes, but not with the value of the seman

39 acement (IIP) is predictable but can lead to esthetic challenges, including midfacial recession (MFR)

40 by clinicians and patients suggested a more esthetic clinical result with AD.

41 ze and shape, kinesthesia, and body size and esthetics), cold pain, and auditory and visual processin

42 a loss, collapse of ridge contour, and other esthetic complications.

43 d for patients with moderate to high risk of esthetic complications.

44 unctions above both incisors but were not an esthetic concern because of the patient's moderate smile

45 val recession (GR) is one of the most common esthetic concerns associated with periodontal tissues.

46 op root sensitivity and root caries and pose esthetic concerns for the patient.

47 eeth, the occlusal jaw relationship, and the esthetic concerns of the patient.

48 sultant gingival defect and minimize patient esthetic concerns.

49 This analysis showed that the esthetic consequence of exposure to multiple sources of

50 elevation of the ptotic brow improves eyelid esthetics; conversely, failure to appreciate and to alle

51 ap (OF) and minimally invasive flapless (FL) esthetic crown lengthening (ECL) for the treatment of EG

52 aft was harvested and utilized to prevent an esthetic defect.

53 wounding and result in severe functional and esthetic defects.

54 ly in cases with minimal crestal width, high esthetic demands, or where exact implant placement is cr

55 nsions, perceived after reduction of CDH and esthetic dissatisfaction of patients with GRs treated wi

56 atistically significant reduction in CDH and esthetic dissatisfaction with no intergroup significant

57 o cervical dentin hypersensitivity (CDH) and esthetic dissatisfaction.

58 osthetic maintenance, adequate function, and esthetics during the five-year period.

59 valuate T-shirts that varied in their visual esthetic (e.g., color) and semantic (e.g., meaning of lo

60 The patient was referred for esthetic enhancement of the area in question.

61 After a follow-up of 2 years, clinical and esthetic evaluations were performed in 36 patients.

62 Patients' esthetic expectations are increasing, and the options of

63 These implants were deemed esthetic failures, despite the absence of inflammation a

64 Patient assessments of function, esthetics, feel of implant, speech, and self-esteem also

65 he graded glass/zirconia/glass with external esthetic glass (e-GZG) can increase the lifetime and imp

66 characteristic strength than the IPS Empress Esthetic glass-ceramic (p < 0.05).

67 graded glass-zirconia surface with external esthetic glass.

68 Smile esthetics have been shown to play a major role in the pe

69 pain, bleeding, lesion size, functional and esthetic impairment, and intravascular coagulopathy.

70 a challenge for surgical reconstruction and esthetic improvement of intraoral mucosa and perioral sk

71 , with better defect coverage, clinical, and esthetic improvements compared with palatal grafts.

72 ckness, soft tissue peri-implant parameters, esthetic indices, and patient satisfaction were also ass

73 Both groups showed esthetics maintenance after 2 years.

74 were performed on the effect of preoperative esthetic morbidity and postoperative esthetic outcome.

75 group, all patients were satisfied with the esthetics obtained, and 19 patients (79.1%) were satisfi

76 A proposed major determinant of the esthetics of a smile is the amount of gingival display,

77 palatal surgical approach did not alter the esthetics of the area, and its simplicity is recommended

78 gingivoplasty is often performed to improve esthetics of the grafted site.

79 nlargement interferes with function, speech, esthetics, or oral hygiene, tissue reduction can be acco

80 clinical trial was to assess and compare the esthetic outcome and clinical performance of anterior ma

81 linical trial compared bone regeneration and esthetic outcome between immediate and conventional load

82 A secondary aim is to assess the esthetic outcome via the implant esthetic score (IAS).

83 2-month postoperative appointment, a highly esthetic outcome was obtained utilizing a connective tis

84 ncluded radiographic bone changes, papillary esthetic outcome, and implant survival rate.

85 , peri-implant hard and soft tissue changes, esthetic outcome, and patient satisfaction of immediatel

86 anges in hard and soft peri-implant tissues, esthetic outcome, and patient satisfaction were consider

87 erative esthetic morbidity and postoperative esthetic outcome.

88 ontour of the ridge and achieve a successful esthetic outcome.

89 Esthetics outcome was assessed with VAS and the Question

90 ferred strategy-conferring a benefit of 4.47 esthetic-outcome-adjusted life years.

91 her flapless implant surgery provides better esthetic outcomes and less bone loss than implant surger

92 esulted in similar bone gain and soft tissue esthetic outcomes compared to delayed loading.

93 root coverage, postoperative morbidity, and esthetic outcomes of subepithelial connective tissue gra

94 view aims to systematically analyze clinical esthetic outcomes of the immediate implant combined with

95 or all 41 implants examined and satisfactory esthetic outcomes overall.

96 n, and width of keratinized gingiva were the esthetic outcomes reviewed.

97 Esthetic outcomes were also evaluated.

98 -month follow-up were included, and reported esthetic outcomes were analyzed.

99 Other esthetic outcomes were assessed by the descriptive analy

100 Esthetic outcomes were incorporated into the model by cr

101 Satisfactory esthetic outcomes were noted, as assessed by the pink an

102 ility over time for both groups and pleasing esthetic outcomes.

103 ld be made regarding the benefit of IMITG on esthetic outcomes.

104 prosthetic restoration shows positive final esthetic outcomes.

105 obing depth, mobility, plaque, inflammation, esthetics, pain, and patient satisfaction following peri

106 involvement, mobility, plaque, inflammation, esthetics, pain, and patient satisfaction following peri

107 Clinical, radiologic, and esthetic parameters were assessed at both examinations.

108 zirconia structures can now be produced with esthetic quality, making them an attractive alternative.

109 n of the lipoencephalocele was performed for esthetic reasons.

110 Due to the esthetic requirements of the patient in this case report

111 used treatment that provides functional and esthetic resolution for patients suffering from tooth lo

112 ne quality for dental implant procedures and esthetic restorative dentistry.

113 n of maxillary anterior teeth is vital to an esthetic restorative result.

114 at the time of excision can produce a highly esthetic result and avoid additional surgical procedures

115 This report demonstrated an acceptable esthetic result with no loss of ridge height or width.

116 s, this technique demonstrated an acceptable esthetic result with virtually no loss of ridge height o

117 ess protocol may provide a better short-term esthetic result, although there appears to be no long-te

118 ts is important for a stable and predictable esthetic result.

119 re loss of ridge height would compromise the esthetic result.

120 Because of underreporting, esthetic results and patient outcome did not allow for r

121 tion becomes crucial in cases demanding high esthetic results but possessing minimal ridge width or i

122 However, achieving predictable esthetic results with IIP presents a challenge because o

123 , including increases in keratinized tissue, esthetic results, and subject satisfaction.

124 soft tissue biopsy can be managed with good esthetic results.

125 ic surgery is highly predictable, and highly esthetic root coverage can be gained without requiring a

126 Patient-reported pain, discomfort, and esthetic satisfaction were also recorded.

127 essed with VAS and the Questionnaire of Oral Esthetic Satisfaction.

128 mpared with surrounding tissues, and patient esthetic satisfaction.

129 assess the esthetic outcome via the implant esthetic score (IAS).

130 Pink esthetic score (PES) and white esthetic score (WES) valu

131 ere noted, as assessed by the pink and white esthetic score (PES/WES) indices.

132 Pink esthetic score (PES) and white esthetic score (WES) values at all 3 examinations indica

133 The total root-coverage esthetic score of the areas including treated and adjace

134 gests that flapless implant surgery provides esthetic soft tissue results in single-tooth implants ei

135 service relevant to urban public health and esthetics: the consumption of littered food waste by art

136 ion of commercial, scientific, historical or esthetic value.

137 actice, and patient-centered outcomes (i.e., esthetic, visual analog scale, complications, hypersensi

138 4; P = 0.001), and gingival recession in the esthetic zone (r = 0.718; P = 0.001).

139 Forty patients with a failing tooth in the esthetic zone and a labial bony defect of >/=5 mm after

140 A relatively large amalgam tattoo in the esthetic zone can be adequately removed by a two-stage p

141 g papillae in the gingival embrasures of the esthetic zone is a key consideration in periodontal, res

142 provisionalization of dental implants in the esthetic zone results in excellent short-term treatment

143 en multiple implants are to be placed in the esthetic zone so that a minimum of 3 mm of bone can be r

144 the more sites of gingival recession in the esthetic zone the subjects had, the fewer teeth they sho

145 te placement of single-tooth implants in the esthetic zone was accompanied by excellent 1-year implan

146 ate implant placement in bony defects in the esthetic zone was non-inferior to delayed implant placem

147 creases for more natural restorations in the esthetic zone, clinicians must have the highest level of

148 g two implants adjacent to each other in the esthetic zone.

149 ediately placed single-tooth implants in the esthetic zone.