BACKGROUND: This descriptive study reviewed the 1- to 15-year survival rates of fixed implant rehabilitations in the edentulous maxilla. METHODS: An electronic search was conducted, and cohort studies with 1- to 15-year follow-ups were identified by two independent reviewers. The implant and prosthodontic survival rates were reviewed at 1-, 3-, 5-, 10-, and 15-year endpoints. Descriptive analysis includes surface characteristics, bone-augmentation procedure, prosthetic design, and implant number and distribution along the edentulous maxilla. RESULTS: Thirty-three studies, including 1,320 patients and 8,376 implants, were selected for analysis. The overall calculated implant survival rates ranged from 94% (1 year) to 87.7% (15 years). The implant survival rates for rough-surface implants ranged from 97% (1 year) to 98% (15 years); machined implants showed survival rates of 92% to 87.7%; respectively. Implants placed in native bone had greater survival rates than those placed in augmented bone. The prosthodontic survival rate ranged from 98.2% at 1 year to 92.1% at the 10-year endpoint, and it was only influenced by the implant number and distribution. CONCLUSIONS: Implants with rough surfaces showed a statistically higher survival rate than machined implants at all intervals. Implants placed in augmented bone had a statistically lower survival rate, except for rough-surface implants, for which no statistical difference between augmented and non-augmented bone survival rates was found. Machined implants showed a stable survival rate only when placed in native bone. When machined implants were placed in augmented bone, the survival rate decreased significantly at each study endpoint. The prosthetic design, veneering material, and the number of prostheses per arch had no influence on the prosthodontic survival rate. Implant number and distribution along the edentulous maxilla seemed to influence the prosthodontic survival rate.
BACKGROUND: This descriptive study reviewed the 1- to 15-year survival rates of fixed implant rehabilitations in the edentulous maxilla. METHODS: An electronic search was conducted, and cohort studies with 1- to 15-year follow-ups were identified by two independent reviewers. The implant and prosthodontic survival rates were reviewed at 1-, 3-, 5-, 10-, and 15-year endpoints. Descriptive analysis includes surface characteristics, bone-augmentation procedure, prosthetic design, and implant number and distribution along the edentulous maxilla. RESULTS: Thirty-three studies, including 1,320 patients and 8,376 implants, were selected for analysis. The overall calculated implant survival rates ranged from 94% (1 year) to 87.7% (15 years). The implant survival rates for rough-surface implants ranged from 97% (1 year) to 98% (15 years); machined implants showed survival rates of 92% to 87.7%; respectively. Implants placed in native bone had greater survival rates than those placed in augmented bone. The prosthodontic survival rate ranged from 98.2% at 1 year to 92.1% at the 10-year endpoint, and it was only influenced by the implant number and distribution. CONCLUSIONS: Implants with rough surfaces showed a statistically higher survival rate than machined implants at all intervals. Implants placed in augmented bone had a statistically lower survival rate, except for rough-surface implants, for which no statistical difference between augmented and non-augmented bone survival rates was found. Machined implants showed a stable survival rate only when placed in native bone. When machined implants were placed in augmented bone, the survival rate decreased significantly at each study endpoint. The prosthetic design, veneering material, and the number of prostheses per arch had no influence on the prosthodontic survival rate. Implant number and distribution along the edentulous maxilla seemed to influence the prosthodontic survival rate.