ライフサイエンスコーパス: esthetic

1 unlimited graft availability, and comparable esthetics.

2 veneered zirconia, while providing necessary esthetics.

3 ssion remains an important problem in dental esthetics.

4 eplace missing teeth to provide function and esthetics.

5 ectomy, which provided improved function and esthetics.

6 ngival enlargement affecting mastication and esthetics.

7 treatment option for enhancement of implant esthetics.

8 leviate root surface sensitivity and improve esthetics.

9 ridge collapse can significantly compromise esthetics.

10 revent ridge collapse and ultimately improve esthetics.

11 occlusion for nutrition intake, and improve esthetics.

12 dimensions showed negative correlation with esthetics.

13 velopmental anomalies affecting function and esthetics.

14 cal concern affecting both functionality and esthetics.

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

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

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

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

19 nd between subjectively felt impaired dental esthetics and an interest in orthodontic treatment.

20 se, programmatic control over the placement, esthetics and arrangements of plots while maximizing use

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

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

23 es were utilized to capture patient-reported esthetics and dental hypersensitivity for each study too

24 nd dental implants are indicated to optimize esthetics and maintain peri-implant health.

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

26 years, while LCC was associated with better esthetics and patient-reported outcomes than FGG.

27 ce bone and soft tissues, as well as restore esthetics and physiologic functions while restoring self

28 0001), but all other PRO measures, including esthetics and satisfaction, improved similarly for both

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

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

31 Esthetics and the health of oral implants are based upon

32 ralateral gingival recessions with clinical, esthetic, and histological evaluations was carried out.

33 rapy and highlights their expected clinical, esthetic, and patient-related outcomes.

34 alatal graft, while highlighting functional, esthetic, and patient-related outcomes.

35 milar stable peri-implant tissues, favorable esthetics, and clinically negligible contour changes at

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

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

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

39 tcomes included measures such as discomfort, esthetics, and overall satisfaction; 6-month end point r

40 35 panelists considered the control of pain, esthetics, and patient satisfaction to be "extremely imp

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

42 one level, clinical peri-implant parameters, esthetics, and patient satisfaction.

43 width (AGW), REC, clinical attachment level, esthetics, and patient-reported outcomes at the 13-year

44 ccal bone thickness, soft tissue parameters, esthetics, and patient-reported satisfaction were record

45 ccal bone thickness, soft tissue parameters, esthetics, and patient-reported satisfaction were record

46 s, buccal bone thickness, clinical outcomes, esthetics, and patients' satisfaction following immediat

47 s, buccal bone thickness, clinical outcomes, esthetics, and patients' satisfaction following immediat

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

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

50 ely used as dental restorations due to their esthetic appearance and high flexural strength.

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

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

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

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

55 th >=1 healthy single dental implants in the esthetic area were identified and recruited.

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

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

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

59 Esthetic assessments used the pink esthetic score (PES)

60 Clinical, patient-centered, and esthetic assessments were performed and intra- and inter

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

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

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

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

65 h the popularity of dental implants, implant esthetic complications are also on the rise.

66 Esthetic complications of dental implants in the estheti

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

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

69 ion showed better volume preservation at the esthetic concern area (mid-facial margin and 2 to 6 mm a

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

71 PMMDs may not only represent an esthetic concern but also predispose to biofilm accumula

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

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

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

75 sultant gingival defect and minimize patient esthetic concerns.

76 urface exposure and potential functional and esthetic concerns.

77 Dentin hypersensitivity and esthetic conditions showed significantly improvements in

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

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

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

81 , treatment duration, and related persistent esthetic damage.

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

83 wounding and result in severe functional and esthetic defects.

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

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

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

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

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

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

90 omains with close-to-optimal performance and esthetic elegance.

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

92 Both techniques improved esthetics evaluated by patients, without a difference be

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

94 Esthetic evaluations were performed using the pink esthe

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

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

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

98 to the oral cavity, which may have important esthetic, functional, and periodontal health implication

99 sk factors and measures of oral function and esthetics, further enhancing the score's public health a

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

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

102 graded glass-zirconia surface with external esthetic glass.

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

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

105 milar between therapies-site sensitivity and esthetics improved similarly for both therapies-but surg

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

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

108 ented low postoperative pain and resulted in esthetics improvements.

109 ve study aims to assess papilla and gingival esthetics in implant-supported rehabilitation of patient

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

111 neers per design from Katana STML (KA), Lava Esthetic (LA), Cercon XT (CE), and ZirCAD MT (ZI) zircon

112 Both groups showed esthetics maintenance after 2 years.

113 ment has mostly come in the area of improved esthetics, marked by the gradual replacement of dental a

114 Clinical, patient-related outcomes and esthetic measurements were assessed after 6 months.

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

116 erences in behavioral ecology, environmental esthetics, neuroscience, and evolutionary and developmen

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

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

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

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

121 only factor associated with patient-reported esthetics (OR -3.38, p = 0.022), while KT (OR 0.77, p =

122 t studies reporting differences in clinical, esthetic, or radiographic outcomes of interest between s

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

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

125 th a CTG or XCM, does not result in a better esthetic outcome and should not be considered as a stand

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

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

128 2-month postoperative appointment, a highly esthetic outcome was obtained utilizing a connective tis

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

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

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

132 e of this study was to evaluate the clinical esthetic outcome, when two different bone grafting mater

133 erative esthetic morbidity and postoperative esthetic outcome.

134 alveolar ridges does not result in a better esthetic outcome.

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

136 Esthetics outcome was assessed with VAS and the Question

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

138 Both treatment modes produced favorable esthetic outcomes (root coverage esthetic score [RES] 9.

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

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

141 LCC-treated sites exhibited superior esthetic outcomes compared to FGG-treated sites at 6 mon

142 ility of root coverage and patient-perceived esthetic outcomes failed to show significant differences

143 bovine bone material (DBBM) the results for esthetic outcomes for anterior teeth and stability of pe

144 embrane both resulted in stable clinical and esthetic outcomes in early implant placement with contou

145 ral teeth consistently demonstrated superior esthetic outcomes in PES.

146 This study evaluated the esthetic outcomes of implant-supported prosthetic treatm

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

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

149 Esthetic outcomes of treatment were evaluated objectivel

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

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

152 Esthetic outcomes were also evaluated.

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

154 Other esthetic outcomes were assessed by the descriptive analy

155 Esthetic outcomes were incorporated into the model by cr

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

157 eeth presence in prosthetic designs improves esthetic outcomes, particularly in papilla regeneration.

158 d, together with their expected clinical and esthetic outcomes.

159 tion at the local site in addition to better esthetic outcomes.

160 th regard to clinical, patient-centered, and esthetic outcomes.

161 mplants offer equally effective solutions in esthetic outcomes.

162 gnificant complications, achieving excellent esthetic outcomes.

163 l implant sites has been proposed to enhance esthetic outcomes.

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

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

166 prosthetic restoration shows positive final esthetic outcomes.

167 Exploratory analyses included esthetic outcomes: changes in tooth color and levels of

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

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

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

171 Clinical, esthetic, patient-centered outcomes, and restorative par

172 Additional study of how this trend affects esthetic perceptions of fluorosis is warranted.

173 ent worsens dentin hypersensitivity (DH) and esthetic perceptions.

174 Soft tissue thickness (STT) influences esthetics, peri-implant, and periodontal health.

175 th the preservation of the marginal bone and esthetic profile.

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

177 eri-implant soft and hard tissue parameters, esthetic ratings of, and patient-reported satisfaction w

178 eri-implant soft and hard tissue parameters, esthetic ratings, and patient-reported satisfaction of i

179 n of the lipoencephalocele was performed for esthetic reasons.

180 Patients presenting a failing tooth in the esthetic region and a buccal bony defect >=5 mm after an

181 Patients presenting a failing tooth in the esthetic region and a buccal bony defect of 5 mm after e

182 ors of midfacial and interproximal GR in the esthetic region were identified.

183 PSTDs are common findings in the esthetic region.

184 val recessions (GR) in the natural dentition esthetic regions.

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

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

187 bles superior improvements in functional and esthetic restoration compared with conventional cranioma

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

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

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

191 gmentation therapies accompanied by a better esthetic result than performing no soft tissue therapy a

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

205 mpared with surrounding tissues, and patient esthetic satisfaction.

206 educed dentin hypersensitivity and increased esthetics satisfaction, with no statistically significan

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

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

209 Esthetic assessments used the pink esthetic score (PES) for teeth, implants, and pontics, a

210 ic evaluations were performed using the pink esthetic score (PES) for teeth, implants, and pontics, w

211 (95% CI = -0.39 to 2.55, P = 0.15) for pink esthetic score (PES), and a WMD of 0.40 mm (95% CI = -0.

212 ographic bone-to-implant contact (DIB), pink esthetic score (PES), and white esthetic score (WES) wer

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

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

215 (DIB), pink esthetic score (PES), and white esthetic score (WES) were measured at 12-months post imp

216 d favorable esthetic outcomes (root coverage esthetic score [RES] 9.51+/- 1.01 tests vs. 9.26+/- 1.10

217 nt were evaluated objectively using the Pink Esthetic Score and through patient reported outcomes.

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

219 t (ISQ), B.L., and Pink-Esthetic-Score/White-Esthetic-Score (PES/WES) were evaluated.

220 ant-Stability-Quotient (ISQ), B.L., and Pink-Esthetic-Score/White-Esthetic-Score (PES/WES) were evalu

221 idths (KTw), probing pocket depths, and pink esthetic scores, and patient-reported outcomes (PRO).

222 For patients seeking an esthetic smile, periodontal plastic surgery can be a val

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

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

225 Fixing a gummy smile is a crucial esthetic treatment.

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

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

228 ered outcomes related to pain/discomfort and esthetics were assessed with visual analogue scale after

229 Periodontal clinical parameters and esthetics were evaluated by a calibrated periodontist at

230 Patient-evaluated esthetics were significantly higher for LCC over FGG (p

231 rticipants' ratings for the impacts of BT on esthetics, with 0 meaning no impact and 10 meaning very

232 4; P = 0.001), and gingival recession in the esthetic zone (r = 0.718; P = 0.001).

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

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

235 etic complications of dental implants in the esthetic zone can have a major negative impact on patien

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

237 The application of CTG in the esthetic zone of immediately placed and provisionalized

238 me of a connective tissue graft (CTG) in the esthetic zone of single immediate implants on the change

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

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

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

242 ckets with buccal bony defects >=5 mm in the esthetic zone versus delayed implant placement after alv

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

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

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

246 kets with buccal bony defects of 5 mm in the esthetic zone, with delayed implant placement after ridg

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

248 nt placement after ridge preservation in the esthetic zone.

249 nt placement after ridge preservation in the esthetic zone.

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