Advertisement

Clinical Oral Investigations

, Volume 23, Issue 3, pp 1209–1215 | Cite as

The Mucosal Scarring Index: reliability of a new composite index for assessing scarring following oral surgery

  • Retief WesselsEmail author
  • Sam De Roose
  • Thomas De Bruyckere
  • Aryan Eghbali
  • Wolfgang Jacquet
  • Tim De Rouck
  • Jan Cosyn
Original Article

Abstract

Objectives

A critical and uniform assessment of mucosal scarring following oral surgery is needed to refine surgical decision-making. For that purpose, the Mucosal Scarring Index (MSI) was developed.

Materials and methods

The MSI is a composite index based on five parameters: width, height/contour, color, suture marks, and overall appearance. Each parameter is assessed with a 0–1–2 score, yielding a MSI score ranging from 0 (no scar) to 10 (most extreme scar). Five periodontists, 5 prosthodontists, and 5 orthodontists assessed scarring using the new index on the basis of 30 clinical photographs of post-surgical sites. Cases had been carefully selected making sure that the complete spectrum of the index would be represented in the analysis. Duplicate evaluation was performed with a 2-h interval and in random order of cases.

Results

On a total of 450 assessments, the mean MSI amounted to 4.91 (SD 3.087) with no significant differences between scores given by periodontists (mean 4.65; SD 3.054), orthodontists (mean 5.04; SD 3.301), or prosthodontists (mean 4.81; SD 2.842) (p = 0.548). The MSI appeared a highly reliable index given excellent inter- as well as intra-examiner agreement (ICC > 0.9; p < 0.001). Clinicians agreed most on ‘overall appearance’ (kappa = 0.582; p < 0.001) and least on ‘suture marks’ (kappa = 0.352; p < 0.001).

Conclusion

The MSI is an effective, easy-to-use, and reliable composite index to assess mucosal scarring following oral surgical procedures.

Clinical relevance

The MSI can be used as an adjunct to other indices in the esthetic evaluation of oral surgical procedures.

Keywords

Scar Scarring Index Dental implant Oral surgery 

Notes

Acknowledgements

The authors wish to thank all participating clinicians for their valuable contribution. The authors would like to report on a collaboration agreement between Nobel Biocare, Belgium, and Prof. dr. Jan Cosyn.

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

Author A declares that he has no conflict of interest. Author B declares that he has no conflict of interest. Author C declares that he has no conflict of interest. Author D declares that he has no conflict of interest. Author E declares that he has no conflict of interest. Author F declares that he has no conflict of interest. Author G (Prof. Dr. Jan Cosyn) would like to report on a collaboration agreement between Nobel Biocare, Belgium, and himself.

Ethical approval

This article does not contain any studies with human participants or animals performed by any of the authors.

Informed consent

For this type of study, formal consent is not required.

References

  1. 1.
    Ferguson MW, Whitby DJ, Shah M, Armstrong J, Siebert JW, Longaker MT (1996) Scar formation: the spectral nature of fetal and adult wound repair. Plast Reconstr Surg 97:854–860CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Chen L, Arbieva ZH, Guo S, Marucha PT, Mustoe TA, DiPietro LA (2010) Positional differences in the wound transcriptome of skin and oral mucosa. BMC Genomics 11:471CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Zuhr O, Hürzeler M (2012) Plastic-Esthetic Periodontal and Implant surgery. A Microsurgical technique. United Kingdom: Quintessence publishing co. LtdGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Cosyn J, Thoma DS, Hammerle CH, De Bruyn H (2017) Esthetic assessments in implant dentistry: objective and subjective criteria for clinicians and patients. Periodontol 2000 73:193–202CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Furhauser R, Florescu D, Benesch T, Haas R, Mailath G, Watzek G (2005) Evaluation of soft tissue around single-tooth implant crowns: the pink esthetic score. Clin Oral Implants Res 16:639–644CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Belser UC, Grutter L, Vailati F, Bornstein MM, Weber HP, Buser D (2009) Outcome evaluation of early placed maxillary anterior single-tooth implants using objective esthetic criteria: a cross-sectional, retrospective study in 45 patients with a 2- to 4-year follow-up using pink and white esthetic scores. J Periodontol 80:140–151CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Meijer HJ, Stellingsma K, Meijndert L, Raghoebar GM (2005) A new index for rating aesthetics of implant-supported single crowns and adjacent soft tissues--the implant crown aesthetic index. Clin Oral Implants Res 16:645–649CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Fearmonti R, Bond J, Erdmann D, Levinson H (2010) A review of scar scales and scar measuring devices. Eplasty 10:e43Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Sullivan T, Smith J, Kermode J, McIver E, Courtemanche DJ (1990) Rating the burn scar. J Burn Care Rehabil 11:256–260CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Quinn JV, Drzewiecki AE, Stiell IG, Elmslie TJ (1995) Appearance scales to measure cosmetic outcomes of healed lacerations. Am J Emerg Med 13:229–231CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Draaijers LJ, Tempelman FR, Botman YA, Tuinebreijer WE, Middelkoop E, Kreis RW et al (2004) The patient and observer scar assessment scale: a reliable and feasible tool for scar evaluation. Plast Reconstr Surg 113:1960–1965 discussion 1966–1967CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Beausang E, Floyd H, Dunn KW, Orton CI, Ferguson MW (1998) A new quantitative scale for clinical scar assessment. Plast Reconstr Surg 102:1954–1961CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Singer AJ, Arora B, Dagum A, Valentine S, Hollander JE (2007) Development and validation of a novel scar evaluation scale. Plast Reconstr Surg 120:1892–1897CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Shah M, Foreman DM, Ferguson MW (1995) Neutralisation of TGF-beta 1 and TGF-beta 2 or exogenous addition of TGF-beta 3 to cutaneous rat wounds reduces scarring. J Cell Sci 108(Pt 3):985–1002Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Younes F, Eghbali A, De Troyer S, De Bruyckere T, Cleymaet R, Cosyn J (2016) Marginal and apical bone stability after staged sinus floor augmentation using bone condensing implants with variable-thread design: a two-dimensional analysis. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg 45:1135–1141CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Cosyn J, Cleymaet R, Hanselaer L, De Bruyn H (2012) Regenerative periodontal therapy of infrabony defects using minimally invasive surgery and a collagen-enriched bovine-derived xenograft: a 1-year prospective study on clinical and aesthetic outcome. J Clin Periodontol 39:979–986CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Cosyn J, Pollaris L, Van der Linden F, De Bruyn H (2015) Minimally invasive single implant treatment (M.I.S.I.T.) based on ridge preservation and contour augmentation in patients with a high aesthetic risk profile: one-year results. J Clin Periodontol 42:398–405CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Taschieri S, Corbella S, Del Fabbro M (2014) Do gingival soft tissues benefit from the application of a papilla preservation flap technique in endodontic surgery? J Oral Maxillofac Surg 72:1898–1908CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Tortorici S, Difalco P, Caradonna L, Tete S (2014) Traditional endodontic surgery versus modern technique: a 5-year controlled clinical trial. J Craniofac Surg 25:804–807CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Rossberg M, Eickholz P, Raetzke P, Ratka-Kruger P (2008) Long-term results of root coverage with connective tissue in the envelope technique: a report of 20 cases. Int J Periodontics Restorative Dent 28:19–27Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Hammerle CH, Chen ST, Wilson TG Jr (2004) Consensus statements and recommended clinical procedures regarding the placement of implants in extraction sockets. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 19(Suppl):26–28Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Cosyn J, Eghbali A, Hermans A, Vervaeke S, De Bruyn H, Cleymaet R (2016) A 5-year prospective study on single immediate implants in the aesthetic zone. J Clin Periodontol 43:702–709CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Roccuzzo M, Gaudioso L, Bunino M, Dalmasso P (2014) Long-term stability of soft tissues following alveolar ridge preservation: 10-year results of a prospective study around nonsubmerged implants. Int J Periodontics Restorative Dent 34:795–804CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Buser D, Chappuis V, Kuchler U, Bornstein MM, Wittneben JG, Buser R, Cavusoglu Y, Belser UC (2013) Long-term stability of early implant placement with contour augmentation. J Dent Res 92:176S–182SCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences, Dental School, Department of Periodontology and Oral ImplantologyGhent UniversityGhentBelgium
  2. 2.Faculty of Medicine and Pharmacy, Oral Health Research Group (ORHE)Vrije Universiteit Brussel (VUB)BrusselsBelgium

Personalised recommendations