Long‐term implant survival and success: a 10–16‐year follow‐up of non‐submerged dental implants

Objectives: The aim of the present study was to evaluate the long‐term results of dental implants using implant survival and implant success as outcome variables. Methods: Of the 76 patients who received 162 implants of the Straumann Dental Implant System during the years 1990–1997, 55 patients with 131 implants were recalled 10–16 years after implant placement for a complete clinical and radiographic examination, followed by a questionnaire that examined the degree of satisfaction. The incidence of biological and technical complications has been carefully analysed for each implant. Success was defined as being free of all these complications over the entire observation period. Associated factors related to peri‐implant lesions were analysed for each implant. Results: The long‐term implant cumulative survival rate up to 16 years was 82.94%. The prevalence of biological complications was 16.94% and the prevalence of technical complications was 31.09%. The cumulative complication rate after an observation period of 10–16 years was 48.03%, which meant that substantial amounts of chair time were necessary following implant placement. The majority of implant losses and biological complications were concentrated in a relatively small number of patients. Conclusion: Despite a relatively high long‐term survival rate, biological and technical complications were frequent. Patients with a history of periodontitis may have lower implant survival rates than patients without a history of periodontitis and were more prone to biological complications such as peri‐implant mucositis and peri‐implantitis. To cite this article :
Simonis P, Dufour T, Tenenbaum H. Long‐term implant survival and success: a 10–16‐year follow‐up of non‐submerged dental implants.
Clin. Oral Impl. Res. 21 , 2010; 772–777
doi: 10.1111/j.1600‐0501.2010.01912.x     

A retrospective analysis of 1000 consecutively placed implants in private practice

Background:  There have been numerous reports evaluating clinical outcomes of implants placed in institutional settings, but there are few studies relating to implants placed in private practice. The aim of this retrospective study was to analyse the clinical outcomes of 1000 consecutively placed Straumann implants in private specialist periodontal practice.
Methods:  A hand-search of patient records was undertaken to identify 1000 consecutively placed implants. Data extracted included patient demographics, details of implants placed, implant sites, timing of placement after extraction, hard and soft tissue augmentation procedures, loading protocols, type of prostheses and treatment outcomes (implant survival, implant success and complications).
Results:  The majority of implants (71.5 per cent) placed in patients aged 40 to 69, and the majority of patients (88.6 per cent) received 1 or 2 implants. During the period of the study, 9 implants were lost and 45 presented with complications requiring chairside intervention. A life table analysis showed 5 and 10-year cumulative survival rates of 99.2 per cent and 98.4 per cent respectively, and 5 and 10-year cumulative success rates of 93.1 per cent and 90.9 per cent respectively.
Conclusions:  With careful treatment planning and adherence to recommended surgical and prosthetic protocols, high implant survival and success rates can be achieved in a private practice setting.     

种植体失败位点再种植的临床回顾分析

目的: 评估种植体失败位点再种植修复治疗的临床效果及其影响因素。方法: 选择2005年1月—2011年12月间就诊的失败位点再种植的患者共12例(15颗种植体), 统计再植入种植体的存留情况, 收集并分析影响再植入种植体存留相关危险因素的临床资料。采用SPSS13.0软件包对数据进行统计学分析。结果: 首次失败位点再植入的种植体存留率为100%。再种植时选择的平均种植体直径为(4.5±0.6) mm, 大于首次种植时的(4.1±0.7) mm(P<0.05)。首次植入种植体的平均存留时间为(12.9±15.9)个月, 从种植体脱落到再种植的平均间隔时间为(6.8±4.4)个月。患者自身因素、种植体因素以及手术、修复治疗因素并未对失败位点再植入种植体的存留产生影响。结论: 种植失败位点可考虑再种植治疗的修复方案, 种植医师对取得满意的种植体存留率应具有足够信心。     

152枚Frialit-2种植系统修复5年临床效果评价

目的：评价Frialit-2种植体修复5年临床效果。方法：2004年10月至2009年10月在苏州口腔医院植入的152枚Frialit-2种植体,共计92例患者,全部在2009年10月前完成上部修复。其中固定修复81例,覆盖义齿修复11例。随访时间6-61个月。观察方法为X线检查和临床检查,采用Wheeler存留标准评估,应用寿命表计算法计算5年累计存留率。结果：152枚种植体中,3枚在修复前松动脱落,其余149枚完成骨结合行上部修复,其中2枚种植体松动脱落,五年累计存留率96.67%。失败原因为种植体周围炎和感染,未出现上部修复结构的损坏。结论：Frialit-2种植体修复缺失牙效果良好,5年留存率为96.67%。     

Prophylactic antibiotic regimen and dental implant failure: a meta‐analysis

The aim of this meta‐analysis was to investigate whether there are any positive effects of prophylactic antibiotic regimen on implant failure rates and post‐operative infection when performing dental implant treatment in healthy individuals. An electronic search without time or language restrictions was undertaken in March 2014. Eligibility criteria included clinical human studies, either randomised or not. The search strategy resulted in 14 publications. The I² statistic was used to express the percentage of the total variation across studies due to heterogeneity. The inverse variance method was used with a fixed‐ or random‐effects model, depending on the heterogeneity. The estimates of relative effect were expressed in risk ratio (RR) with 95% confidence interval. Six studies were judged to be at high risk of bias, whereas one study was considered at moderate risk, and six studies were considered at low risk of bias. The test for overall effect showed that the difference between the procedures (use versus non‐use of antibiotics) significantly affected the implant failure rates (P = 0·0002), with a RR of 0·55 (95% CI 0·41–0·75). The number needed to treat (NNT) to prevent one patient having an implant failure was 50 (95% CI 33–100). There were no apparent significant effects of prophylactic antibiotics on the occurrence of post‐operative infections in healthy patients receiving implants (P = 0·520). A sensitivity analysis did not reveal difference when studies judged as having high risk of bias were not considered. The results have to be interpreted with caution due to the presence of several confounding factors in the included studies.     

COVID-19 as a factor associated with early dental implant failures: A retrospective analysis

Objectives

To analyze the effect of COVID-19 on early implant failures and identify potential risk factors for early implant failure, concerning patient- and implant-related factors.

Materials and Methods

This retrospective study is based on 1228 patients who received 4841 implants between March 11, 2020, and April 01, 2022, at Erciyes University Faculty of Dentistry. COVID-19, age and gender of patients, smoking, diabetes, irradiation, chemotherapy, osteoporosis, the implant system, location, and characteristics of implants were recorded. At the implant level, univariate and multivariate generalized estimating equation (GEE) logistic regression was used to examine the effect of explanatory variables on early implant failure.

Results

The early implant failure rate was 3.1% at the implant level and 10.4% at the patient level. Smokers showed a significantly higher incidence of early implant failures compared to nonsmokers. (odds ratio (OR; 95% CI): 2.140 (1.438–3.184); p < 0.001). Short implants (≤8 mm) had a higher risk of early implant failure than long implants (≥12 mm) (OR (95% CI): 2.089 (1.290–3.382); p = 0.003).

Conclusions

COVID-19 had no significant effect on early implant failure. Smoking and short implants were associated with a higher risk for early implant failures.     

Clinical performance of one‐piece zirconia dental implants: A systematic review

The aim of the present review was to evaluate the clinical and radiographic performance of one‐piece zirconia implants (O‐PZI). This review followed the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta‐Analysis) guidelines that addressed the following focused question: What is the overall clinical and radiographic performance of O‐PZI? The MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and Cochrane Oral Health Group Trials Register databases were searched. Six clinical studies were included. For studies evaluating O‐PZI compared with one‐piece titanium implants, zirconia implants showed higher crestal bone loss (CBL) in both the studies. However, one study demonstrated a high failure rate compared to titanium dental implants, while one study demonstrated comparable survival rates between zirconia and titanium dental implants. For studies evaluating O‐PZI for the restoration of single crown and fixed dental prostheses, O‐PZI showed comparable bone loss and survival rates for single crowns and fixed dental prostheses. Two studies were included that compared O‐PZI with two‐piece zirconia (T‐PZI). One study showed a higher CBL and low survival rate for O‐PZI compared to T‐PZI, whereas the other study demonstrated comparable CBL and survival rates between O‐PZI and T‐PZI. It is still debatable whether O‐PZI demonstrate better clinical performance when compared with titanium implants or two‐piece design.