PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to evaluate patient, implant, and treatment characteristics to identify possible prognostic factors for implant failure. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Out of a database with different dental implant treatment protocols, a research database of 1 randomly selected implant per patient was created. The database consisted of 487 implants. Of these, 80 were withdrawn, 36 failed, and 371 remained successful during a 5-year follow-up period. Potential risk factors were evaluated by chi-square tests and post hoc analyses. RESULTS: Significant or strongly significant differences were found regarding implant failures as a result of jawbone quality, jaw shape, implant length, treatment protocol, and combinations of jawbone-related characteristics. Responsible clinics and number of implants supporting the restoration were factors that could not be associated with implant failure. DISCUSSION: Implant failures in this study were more often seen when negative patient-related factors were present. Approximately 65% of the patients with a combination of the 2 most negative bone-related factors (jawbone quality 4 and jaw shape D or E) experienced implant failure. However, only 3% of the patients had this combination. Implant length, the only implant-related factor evaluated, was also significantly correlated with the success rate, but implant length could also be regarded as a result of the jawbone volume available. Another negative patient-related factor was the treatment protocol; however, in most cases this was also indirectly or partly related to the status of the jawbone available for implant placement. CONCLUSION: Patient selection appears to be of importance for increasing implant success rates.
PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to evaluate patient, implant, and treatment characteristics to identify possible prognostic factors for implant failure. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Out of a database with different dental implant treatment protocols, a research database of 1 randomly selected implant per patient was created. The database consisted of 487 implants. Of these, 80 were withdrawn, 36 failed, and 371 remained successful during a 5-year follow-up period. Potential risk factors were evaluated by chi-square tests and post hoc analyses. RESULTS: Significant or strongly significant differences were found regarding implant failures as a result of jawbone quality, jaw shape, implant length, treatment protocol, and combinations of jawbone-related characteristics. Responsible clinics and number of implants supporting the restoration were factors that could not be associated with implant failure. DISCUSSION: Implant failures in this study were more often seen when negative patient-related factors were present. Approximately 65% of the patients with a combination of the 2 most negative bone-related factors (jawbone quality 4 and jaw shape D or E) experienced implant failure. However, only 3% of the patients had this combination. Implant length, the only implant-related factor evaluated, was also significantly correlated with the success rate, but implant length could also be regarded as a result of the jawbone volume available. Another negative patient-related factor was the treatment protocol; however, in most cases this was also indirectly or partly related to the status of the jawbone available for implant placement. CONCLUSION:Patient selection appears to be of importance for increasing implant success rates.
Authors: Paolo Tonelli; Marco Duvina; Luigi Barbato; Eleonora Biondi; Niccolò Nuti; Leila Brancato; Giovanna Delle Rose Journal: Clin Cases Miner Bone Metab Date: 2011-09