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     

Peri‐implant soft tissue and bone crest alterations at fixed dental prostheses: a 3‐year prospective study

Objectives: The aim of this 3‐year prospective study involving patients receiving implant‐supported fixed dental prostheses (FDPs) was to longitudinally evaluate soft and hard tissue alterations from the time of implant placement. Material and methods: Sixteen subjects with 18 implant‐supported FDPs on 43 implants were included in the study. Peri‐implant soft and hard tissue assessments were performed at implant placement, 2, 6, 12, 24 and 36 months. Variables describing the peri‐implant soft tissue conditions and topography were assessed by clinical, photographic and study model assessments. Variables of implant position and bone topography were measured in radiographs taken at each examination interval. Multilevel regression models were formulated to identify factors of significance for proximal bone crest alterations and proximal soft tissue height. Results: During the first 6 months after the one‐stage implant placement surgery, the soft tissue margin receded about 0.6 mm at facial implant sites, while a mean increase was observed at tooth‐facing proximal sites (1.1 mm) and no change at inter‐implant sites. Loss in proximal bone crest height was more pronounced at inter‐implant than tooth–implant units at 6 months (0.6 vs. 0.1 mm). Between 6 and 36 months, no further significant soft or hard tissue changes were observed. Multilevel regression analysis revealed that the proximal bone crest level significantly influenced the proximal soft tissue height assessed from the implant/abutment level. Significant predictors for loss in proximal bone crest level over the 3 years were horizontal inter‐unit distance, type of proximal unit (tooth/implant or inter‐implant) and peri‐implant bone‐level change. Conclusions: Soft and hard tissue changes around implant‐supported FDPs took place primarily during the first 6 months after the one‐stage implant installation surgery. The pattern of tissue alterations during the follow‐up differed between tooth–implant and inter‐implant proximal sites. To cite this article:
Chang M, Wennström JL. Peri‐implant soft tissue and bone crest alterations at fixed dental prostheses: a 3‐year prospective study.
Clin. Oral Impl. Res. 21, 2010; 527–534.
doi: 10.1111/j.1600‐0501.2009.01874.x     

Bone alterations at implant‐supported FDPs in relation to inter‐unit distances: a 5‐year radiographic study

Objectives: The aim of this 5‐year study was to longitudinally evaluate bone alterations around implants with a conical implant–abutment interface in relation to implant–tooth and inter–implant distances. Material and methods: The patient sample comprised 43 partially dentate patients with a total of 48 implant‐supported fixed dental prostheses (FDPs) supported by 130 Astra Tech^® implants. Following FDP placement (baseline), the patients were enrolled in an individually designed supportive care program. Radiographic examinations were performed at the time of FDP installation, 1 and 5 years of follow‐up. Variables regarding implant position and proximal bone topography at tooth/implant units (n=36) and implant/implant units (n=67) were assessed with the use of a software program after scanning of the radiographs. Results: At tooth/implant units, the mean 5‐year marginal bone loss at the tooth, the implant and the mid‐proximal bone crest was 0.1, 0.4 and 0.2 mm, respectively. The mean longitudinal bone loss at the implant/implant units was 0.5 mm at the implants and 0.3 mm mid‐proximally. Multilevel regression analysis revealed that at implant/implant units, the change in the bone‐to‐implant contact level was a significant predictor with regard to the 5‐year mid‐proximal bone‐level change, whereas the horizontal inter‐unit distance showed a borderline significance (P=0.052). At tooth/implant units, no statistically significant associations were identified. Conclusions: The results of this 5‐year study revealed differences between inter‐implant and tooth–implant proximal areas with regard to bone crest alterations and associated factors. To cite this article:
Chang M, Wennström JL. Bone alterations at implant‐supported FDPs in relation to inter‐unit distances: a 5‐year radiographic study.
Clin. Oral Impl. Res. 21 , 2010; 735–740.
doi: 10.1111/j.1600‐0501.2009.01893.x     

Early loading of single crowns supported by 6‐mm‐long implants with a moderately rough surface: a prospective 2‐year follow‐up cohort study

Aim: To evaluate prospectively the clinical and radiographic outcomes after 2 years of loading of 6 mm long moderately rough implants supporting single crowns in the posterior regions. Material and methods: Forty SLActive Straumann^® short (6 mm) implants were placed in 35 consecutively treated patients. Nineteen implants, 4.1 mm in diameter, and 21 implants, 4.8 mm in diameter, were installed. Implants were loaded after 6 weeks of healing. Implant survival rate, marginal bone loss and resonance frequency analysis (RFA) were evaluated at different intervals. The clinical crown/implant ratio was also calculated. Results: Two out of 40 implants were lost before loading. Hence, the survival rate before loading was 95%. No further technical or biological complications were encountered during the 2‐year follow‐up. The mean marginal bone loss before loading was 0.34±0.38 mm. After loading, the mean marginal bone loss was 0.23±0.33 and 0.21±0.39 mm at the 1‐ and 2‐year follow‐ups. The RFA values increased between insertion (70.2±9) and the 6‐week evaluation (74.8±6.1). The clinical crown/implant ratio increased with time from 1.5 at the delivery of the prosthesis to 1.8 after 2 years of loading. Conclusion: Short implants (6 mm) with a moderately rough surface loaded early (after 6 weeks) during healing yielded high implant survival rates and moderate loss of bone after 2 years of loading. Longer observation periods are needed to draw more definite conclusions on the reliability of short implants supporting single crowns. To cite this article:
Rossi F, Ricci E, Marchetti C, Lang NP, Botticelli D. Early loading of single crowns supported by 6‐mm‐long implants with a moderately rough surface: a prospective 2‐year follow‐up cohort study.
Clin. Oral Impl. Res. 21 , 2010; 937–943.
doi: 10.1111/j.1600‐0501.2010.01942.x