The Mucosal Scarring Index: reliability of a new composite index for assessing scarring following oral surgery
- 145 Downloads
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.
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).
The MSI is an effective, easy-to-use, and reliable composite index to assess mucosal scarring following oral surgical procedures.
The MSI can be used as an adjunct to other indices in the esthetic evaluation of oral surgical procedures.
KeywordsScar Scarring Index Dental implant Oral surgery
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.
This article does not contain any studies with human participants or animals performed by any of the authors.
For this type of study, formal consent is not required.
- 3.Zuhr O, Hürzeler M (2012) Plastic-Esthetic Periodontal and Implant surgery. A Microsurgical technique. United Kingdom: Quintessence publishing co. LtdGoogle Scholar
- 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
- 8.Fearmonti R, Bond J, Erdmann D, Levinson H (2010) A review of scar scales and scar measuring devices. Eplasty 10:e43Google Scholar
- 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
- 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
- 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.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