Home About us Contact
|
Home About us Contact | ||
|
|
||
Implant Survival Rate (implant + survival_rate)
Selected AbstractsA 10-year retrospective analysis of radiographic bone-level changes of implants supporting single-unit crowns in periodontally compromised vs. periodontally healthy patientsCLINICAL ORAL IMPLANTS RESEARCH, Issue 9 2010Sergio Matarasso Abstract Aim: To compare the 10-year peri-implant bone loss (BL) rate in periodontally compromised (PCP) and periodontally healthy patients (PHP) around two different implant systems supporting single-unit crowns. Materials and methods: In this retrospective, controlled study, the mean BL (mBL) rate around dental implants placed in four groups of 20 non-smokers was evaluated after a follow-up of 10 years. Two groups of patients treated for periodontitis (PCP) and two groups of PHP were created. For each category (PCP and PHP), two different types of implant had been selected. The mBL was calculated by subtracting the radiographic bone levels at the time of crown cementation from the bone levels at the 10-year follow-up. Results: The mean age, mean full-mouth plaque and full-mouth bleeding scores and implant location were similar between the four groups. Implant survival rates ranged between 85% and 95%, without statistically significant differences (P>0.05) between groups. For both implant systems, PCP showed statistically significantly higher mBL rates and number of sites with BL,3 mm compared with PHP (P<0.0001). Conclusions: After 10 years, implants in PCP yielded lower survival rates and higher mean marginal BL rates compared with those of implants placed in PHP. These results were independent of the implant system used or the healing modality applied. To cite this article: Matarasso S, Rasperini G, Iorio Siciliano V, Salvi GE, Lang NP, Aglietta M. A 10-year retrospective analysis of radiographic bone-level changes of implants supporting single-unit crowns in periodontally compromised vs. periodontally healthy patients. Clin. Oral Impl. Res. 21, 2010; 898,903. doi: 10.1111/j.1600-0501.2010.01945.x [source] Bone level changes at implants supporting crowns or fixed partial dentures with or without cantileversCLINICAL ORAL IMPLANTS RESEARCH, Issue 10 2008Gian Andrea Hälg Abstract Objective: The aim of this study was to analyze whether or not a cantilever extension on a fixed dental prosthesis (FDP) supported by implants increased the amount of peri-implant bone loss or technical complications compared with reconstructions without cantilevers. Materials and Methods: Fifty-four partially dentate patients with a total of 54 FDPs supported by 78 implants were enrolled in the study. Twenty-seven FDPs were with cantilever and 27 FDPs were without cantilever (control group). All FDPs were supported by one or two implants and were located in the posterior maxilla or mandible. The primary outcome variable was change in peri-implant marginal bone level from the time of FDP placement to the last follow-up visit. FDPs were under functional loading for a period of 3 up to 12.7 years. Statistical analysis was carried out with Student's t -test. Regression analyses were carried out to evaluate the influence of confounding factors on the peri-implant bone level change. In addition, implant survival rates were calculated and technical complications assessed. Results: After a mean observation period of 5.3 years, the mean peri-implant bone loss for the FDPs with cantilevers was 0.23 mm (SD±0.63 mm) and 0.09 mm (SD±0.43 mm) for FDPs without cantilever. Concerning the bone level change at implants supporting FDPs with or without cantilevers no statistically significant differences were found. The regression analysis revealed that jaw of implant placement had a statistically significant influence on peri-implant bone loss. When the bone loss in the cantilever group and the control group were compared within the maxilla or mandible separately, no statistically significant difference was found. Implant survival rates reached 95.7% for implants supporting cantilever prostheses and 96.9% for implants of the control group. Five FDPs in the cantilever group showed minor technical complications, none were observed in the control group. Conclusion: Within the limitations of this study it was concluded that cantilever on FDPs did not lead to a higher implant failure rate and did not lead to more bone loss around supporting implants compared with implants supporting conventional FDPs. In contrast to these results more technical complications were observed in the group reconstructed with cantilever. [source] Immediate single-tooth implants in the anterior maxilla: a 1-year case cohort study on hard and soft tissue responseJOURNAL OF CLINICAL PERIODONTOLOGY, Issue 7 2008Tim De Rouck Abstract Aim: The objective of the present study was to assess implant survival rate, hard and soft tissue response and aesthetic outcome 1 year after immediate placement and provisionalization of single-tooth implants in the pre-maxilla. All patients underwent the same strategy, that is mucoperiosteal flap elevation, immediate implant placement, insertion of a grafting material between the implant and the socket wall and the connection of a screw-retained provisional restoration. Material and Methods: Thirty consecutive patients were treated for single-tooth replacement in the aesthetic zone by means of immediate implant placement and provisionalization. Reasons for tooth loss included caries, periodontitis or trauma. At 6 months, provisional crowns were replaced by the permanent ones. Clinical and radiographic evaluation was completed at 1, 3, 6 and 12 months to assess implant survival and complications, hard and soft tissue parameters and patient's aesthetic satisfaction. Results: One implant had failed at 1 month of follow-up, resulting in an implant survival rate of 97%. Radiographic examination yielded 0.98 mm mesial, respectively, 0.78 mm distal bone loss. Midfacial soft tissue recession and mesial/distal papilla shrinkage were 0.53, 0.41and 0.31 mm, respectively. Patient's aesthetic satisfaction was 93%. Conclusions: The preliminary results suggest that the proposed strategy can be considered to be a valuable treatment option in well-selected patients. [source] Outcomes of dental implants placed in a surgical training programmeAUSTRALIAN DENTAL JOURNAL, Issue 4 2009LP Smith Abstract Background:, This study evaluates surgical outcomes and survival rates of implants placed in a multidisciplinary implant teaching programme. Methods:, A retrospective review of all implant surgery performed over a 6-year period by accredited oral and maxillofacial surgery trainees at the Royal Dental Hospital of Melbourne was undertaken. Patients were reviewed for a minimum of 6 months post-implant placement. Implant survival was defined as those implants which were not removed, were clinically integrated as assessed by torque testing and in an appropriate position to receive a subsequent prosthesis. Kaplan-Meier analysis was used to assess overall survival and univariate factors affecting survival. Multivariate analysis used Cox proportional hazards models. Results:, Over 6 years, 127 patients were treated. Follow-up data were present for 105 patients with 236 implants placed. Survival of implants at 1 and 5 years was 94 per cent and 92.8 per cent, respectively. The only univariate and multivariate factor which affected implant survival was perioperative bone grafting. All failed implants were single stage. Other factors such as patient age, smoking status, implant site, anaesthetic type, immediate or delayed placement, implant length and diameter, and medical comorbidities did not significantly affect implant survival. Conclusions:, A satisfactory implant survival rate was found in a tertiary teaching centre. Perioperative bone grafting significantly increased the risk of implant failure. [source] Turned, Machined Versus Double-Etched Dental Implants In VivoCLINICAL IMPLANT DENTISTRY AND RELATED RESEARCH, Issue 2 2007B. Al-Nawas Priv.-Doz., DrMed, DrMedDent ABSTRACT Background:, Positive effects on the clinical outcome of moderately rough implant surfaces are described. Intercomparison of clinical data, however, is rarely found. Purpose:, The aim of this study was to compare the clinical results of two macroscopically identical implants, the one with a turned, machined and the other with an etched surface. Materials and Methods:, In a retrospective cohort study, the included implants followed the criteria: standard surgical protocol, >12 months in situ; minimally rough self-threading implants with a turned, machined surface (Mk IITM Nobel Biocare AB, Göteborg, Sweden], n=210); etched implants of the same macrodesign (3iTM Implant Innovations Inc., Palm Beach Gardens, FL, USA], n=151), length , 10 mm. Clinical data and implant success were rated. Resonance frequency analysis (RFA) and Periotest® (Siemens AG, Bensheim, Germany) were measured and related to the corresponding implant survival rate in the respective group. Results:, The total number of implants was 361, of which 264 (73%) were subject to clinical reexamination. RFA and Periotest could be recorded in 25% of the implants. Neither clinically relevant nor statistically significant differences between the surface designs were found in the RFA (64 ± 8.6 vs 63 ± 9.7), in Periotest (,2 ± 3.3 vs ,1 ± 5.1), and in mean survival periods (49 months, 95% confidence interval CI]: 46,51 months, for the turned vs 46 months, 95% CI: 43,49 months, for the double-etched implant). After osteoplastic procedures, a significantly higher rate of implant losses in the turned, machined implant group was observed (17 vs 1) with a mean survival period of 43 (40,46) months for the turned and 46 (45,48) months for the double-etched implants. Conclusion:, No difference between implants with two different minimally rough surfaces was found. A positive effect of surface roughness is observed in poor quality bone, but the pivotal proof of this effect is still lacking. [source] Immediate occlusal loading and tilted implants for the rehabilitation of the atrophic edentulous maxilla: 1-year interim results of a multicenter prospective studyCLINICAL ORAL IMPLANTS RESEARCH, Issue 3 2008Tiziano Testori Abstract Objectives: The aims of this prospective study were to assess the treatment outcome of immediately loaded full-arch fixed bridges anchored to both tilted and axially placed implants for the rehabilitation of fully edentulous maxillae and to compare the outcome of axial vs. tilted implants. Material and methods: Forty-one patients with edentulous maxillae were included in the study. Each patient received a full-arch fixed bridge supported by four axial implants and two distal tilted implants. Loading was applied within 48 h from surgery. Patients were scheduled for follow-up at 6 months, 1 year and annually up to 5 years. Radiographic evaluation of marginal bone-level change was performed at 1 year. Results: One patient died 4 months after surgery. Thirty patients were followed for a minimum of 1 year (range 3,42 months, mean 22.1 months). Three failures were recorded at 1-year follow-up (two axial implants and one tilted). Two more implants (one tilted and one axially placed) were lost within 18 months of loading. The 1-year implant survival rate was 98.8% for both axial and tilted implants. Prosthesis success rate was 100% at 1 year. Marginal bone loss around axial and tilted implants at 12-month evaluation was similar, being, respectively, 0.9±0.4 (standard deviation) mm and 0.8±0.5 mm. Conclusions: The present preliminary data suggest that immediate loading associated with tilted implants could be considered to be a viable treatment modality for the atrophic maxilla and that there does not seem to be a different clinical outcome between tilted and axial implants. [source] A systematic review of the success of sinus floor elevation and survival of implants inserted in combination with sinus floor elevationJOURNAL OF CLINICAL PERIODONTOLOGY, Issue 2008Part I: Lateral approach Abstract Objectives: The objectives of this systematic review were to assess the survival rate of grafts and implants placed with sinus floor elevation. Material and Methods: An electronic search was conducted to identify studies on sinus floor elevation, with a mean follow-up time of at least 1 year after functional loading. Results: The search provided 839 titles. Full-text analysis was performed for 175 articles resulting in 48 studies that met the inclusion criteria, reporting on 12,020 implants. Meta-analysis indicated an estimated annual failure rate of 3.48% [95% confidence interval (CI): 2.48%,4.88%] translating into a 3-year implant survival of 90.1% (95% CI: 86.4%,92.8%). However, when failure rates was analyzed on the subject level, the estimated annual failure was 6.04% (95% CI: 3.87%,9.43%) translating into 16.6% (95% CI: 10.9%,24.6%) of the subjects experiencing implant loss over 3 years. Conclusion: The insertion of dental implants in combination with maxillary sinus floor elevation is a predictable treatment method showing high implant survival rates and low incidences of surgical complications. The best results (98.3% implant survival after 3 years) were obtained using rough surface implants with membrane coverage of the lateral window. [source] Short Implants Placed One-Stage in Maxillae and Mandibles: A Retrospective Clinical Study with 1 to 9 Years of Follow-UpCLINICAL IMPLANT DENTISTRY AND RELATED RESEARCH, Issue 1 2007Paulo Maló DDS ABSTRACT Background:, The use of short implants (7,8.5 mm) has historically been associated with lower survival rates than for longer implants. However, recent clinical studies indicate that short implants may support most prosthetic restorations quite adequately, but still clinical documentation is sparse. Purpose:, The purpose of this study was to report on the placement of short Brånemark implants, testing the hypothesis that short implants in atrophied jaws might give similar long-term implant survival rates as longer implants used in larger bone volumes. Materials and Methods:, This retrospective clinical study included 237 consecutively treated patients with 408 short Brånemark implants supporting 151 fixed prostheses. One hundred thirty-one of the implants were 7-mm long, and 277 were 8.5-mm long. Final abutments were delivered at the time of surgery, and final prostheses were delivered 4 to 6 months later. Results:, One hundred and twenty six of the 7-mm implants (96%) have passed the 1-year follow-up; 110 (84%), the 2-year follow-up; and 88 (67%), the 5-year follow-up. Five implants failed in four patients before the 6-month follow-up, giving a cumulative survival rate of 96.2% at 5 years. The average bone resorption was 1 mm (SD=0.6 mm) after the first year and 1.8 mm (SD=0.8 mm) after the fifth year of function. Two hundred sixty nine of the 8.5-mm implants (97%) have passed the 1-year follow-up; 220 (79%), the 2-year follow-up; and 142 (51%), the 5-year follow-up. Eight implants failed in seven patients before the 6-month follow-up, giving a cumulative survival rate of 97.1% at 5 years. The average bone resorption was 1.3 mm (SD=0.8 mm) after the first year and 2.2 mm (SD=0.9 mm) after the fifth year of function. Conclusions:, The cumulative survival rates of 96.2 and 97.1% at 5 years for implants of 7.0- and 8.5-mm length, respectively, indicate that one-stage short Brånemark implants used in both jaws is a viable concept. [source] Bone level changes at implants supporting crowns or fixed partial dentures with or without cantileversCLINICAL ORAL IMPLANTS RESEARCH, Issue 10 2008Gian Andrea Hälg Abstract Objective: The aim of this study was to analyze whether or not a cantilever extension on a fixed dental prosthesis (FDP) supported by implants increased the amount of peri-implant bone loss or technical complications compared with reconstructions without cantilevers. Materials and Methods: Fifty-four partially dentate patients with a total of 54 FDPs supported by 78 implants were enrolled in the study. Twenty-seven FDPs were with cantilever and 27 FDPs were without cantilever (control group). All FDPs were supported by one or two implants and were located in the posterior maxilla or mandible. The primary outcome variable was change in peri-implant marginal bone level from the time of FDP placement to the last follow-up visit. FDPs were under functional loading for a period of 3 up to 12.7 years. Statistical analysis was carried out with Student's t -test. Regression analyses were carried out to evaluate the influence of confounding factors on the peri-implant bone level change. In addition, implant survival rates were calculated and technical complications assessed. Results: After a mean observation period of 5.3 years, the mean peri-implant bone loss for the FDPs with cantilevers was 0.23 mm (SD±0.63 mm) and 0.09 mm (SD±0.43 mm) for FDPs without cantilever. Concerning the bone level change at implants supporting FDPs with or without cantilevers no statistically significant differences were found. The regression analysis revealed that jaw of implant placement had a statistically significant influence on peri-implant bone loss. When the bone loss in the cantilever group and the control group were compared within the maxilla or mandible separately, no statistically significant difference was found. Implant survival rates reached 95.7% for implants supporting cantilever prostheses and 96.9% for implants of the control group. Five FDPs in the cantilever group showed minor technical complications, none were observed in the control group. Conclusion: Within the limitations of this study it was concluded that cantilever on FDPs did not lead to a higher implant failure rate and did not lead to more bone loss around supporting implants compared with implants supporting conventional FDPs. In contrast to these results more technical complications were observed in the group reconstructed with cantilever. [source] Immediate and early non-occlusal loading of Straumann implants with a chemically modified surface (SLActive) in the posterior mandible and maxilla: interim results from a prospective multicenter randomized-controlled studyCLINICAL ORAL IMPLANTS RESEARCH, Issue 5 2008Axel Zöllner Abstract Objective: Immediate and early loading of dental implants can simplify treatment and increase overall patient satisfaction. The purpose of this 3-year prospective randomized-controlled multicenter study was to assess the differences in survival rates and bone level changes between immediately and early-loaded implants with a new chemically modified surface (SLActive). This investigation shows interim results obtained after 5 months. Material and methods: Patients ,18 years of age missing at least one tooth in the posterior maxilla or mandible were enrolled in the study. Following implant placement, patients received a temporary restoration either on the day of surgery (immediate loading) or 28,34 days after surgery (early loading); restorations consisted of single crowns or two to four unit fixed dental prostheses. Permanent restorations were placed 20,23 weeks following surgery. The primary efficacy variable was change in bone level (assessed by standardized radiographs) from baseline to 5 months; secondary variables included implant survival and success rates. Results: A total of 266 patients were enrolled (118 males and 148 females), and a total of 383 implants were placed (197 and 186 in the immediate and early loading groups, respectively). Mean patient age was 46.3±12.8 years. After 5 months, implant survival rates were 98% in the immediate group and 97% in the early group. Mean bone level change from baseline was 0.81±0.89 mm in the immediate group and 0.56±0.73 mm in the early group (P<0.05). Statistical analysis revealed a significant center effect (P<0.0001) and a significant treatment × center interaction (P=0.008). Conclusions: The results suggested that Straumann implants with an SLActive can be used predictably in time-critical (early or immediate) loading treatment protocols when appropriate patient selection criteria are observed. The mean bone level changes observed from baseline to 5 months (0.56 and 0.81 mm) corresponded to physiological observations from other studies, i.e., were not clinically significant. The presence of a significant center effect and treatment × center interaction indicated that the differences in bone level changes between the two groups were center dependent. [source] | ||||||||||