Maico D Melo1, Hamid Shafie, George Obeid. 1. Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, Washington Hospital Center, Washington, DC 20010, USA. mmelo2@msn.com
Abstract
PURPOSE: This study evaluates dental implant survival rates in cases where surgery was performed by oral and maxillofacial residents and determines whether the level of resident training influenced the outcome of dental implant treatment. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Retrospective review of all 2-stage implants placed between July 1, 2002 and June 30, 2004 by oral and maxillofacial surgery residents-in-training at the Washington Hospital Center was carried out. Patients were seen for follow-up at 1-week, 1-month, and 6-month intervals after implant surgery. The criteria for implant success in this study were based on clinical and radiographic evidence of implant osseointegration during the follow-up period. We evaluated implant survival rates and used Cox proportional hazards modeling to analyze whether level of resident training or location of implant placement influenced implant survival. RESULTS: This study included 175 implants placed in 54 patients. The overall survival rate of implants placed by oral and maxillofacial surgery residents at all levels of training was 91%. No statistically significant difference in implant survival rates was observed as a function of the level of training of the resident surgeon (P = .89) or location of implant placement (P = .93). CONCLUSION: Survival rates for implants placed by surgeons in training are comparable to rates reported in the literature. There was no statistically significant difference in survival rates when a comparison of level of training was taken into consideration. To our knowledge, this study is the first to examine implant survival rates as a function of surgeon experience in the setting of an oral and maxillofacial residency program and suggests that predictable outcomes in implant treatment are attainable by surgeons in training.
PURPOSE: This study evaluates dental implant survival rates in cases where surgery was performed by oral and maxillofacial residents and determines whether the level of resident training influenced the outcome of dental implant treatment. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Retrospective review of all 2-stage implants placed between July 1, 2002 and June 30, 2004 by oral and maxillofacial surgery residents-in-training at the Washington Hospital Center was carried out. Patients were seen for follow-up at 1-week, 1-month, and 6-month intervals after implant surgery. The criteria for implant success in this study were based on clinical and radiographic evidence of implant osseointegration during the follow-up period. We evaluated implant survival rates and used Cox proportional hazards modeling to analyze whether level of resident training or location of implant placement influenced implant survival. RESULTS: This study included 175 implants placed in 54 patients. The overall survival rate of implants placed by oral and maxillofacial surgery residents at all levels of training was 91%. No statistically significant difference in implant survival rates was observed as a function of the level of training of the resident surgeon (P = .89) or location of implant placement (P = .93). CONCLUSION: Survival rates for implants placed by surgeons in training are comparable to rates reported in the literature. There was no statistically significant difference in survival rates when a comparison of level of training was taken into consideration. To our knowledge, this study is the first to examine implant survival rates as a function of surgeon experience in the setting of an oral and maxillofacial residency program and suggests that predictable outcomes in implant treatment are attainable by surgeons in training.