William Martin1, Emma Lewis, Ailsa Nicol. 1. Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, University of Florida College of Dentistry, 1600 SW Archer Road, Room D7-6, Gainesville, FL 32610, USA. wmartin@dental.ufl.edu
Abstract
PURPOSE: The aim of this review was to determine the effect of several potential local risk factors on implant survival and success (primary outcomes) as well as on mucosal recession, bleeding on probing, and proximal marginal bone loss (secondary outcomes). MATERIALS AND METHODS: A comprehensive review of the literature was conducted. The selection of publications reporting on human clinical studies was based on predetermined inclusion criteria and was agreed upon by three reviewers. After title and abstract screening of 2,681 publications obtained from the search, 19 articles were deemed to be relevant to the topic and the search criteria. RESULTS: Limited data show that when an implant is placed within 3 mm of the neighboring tooth, proximal bone is at risk. The data regarding the placement of implants into infected sites are still insufficient, but studies have shown that this may be possible. Soft tissue thickness has not been shown to be a risk factor in implant survival. There is also no evidence to support a relationship between the width of keratinized tissue and implant survival. No studies were found that directly related bone density to implant survival. Implant stability was also difficult to examine due to the lack of validated stability measures. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION: One critical factor that faced the group during the review of the literature and interpretation of the data was the multifactorial nature of implant therapy. This makes isolation of specific risk factors difficult. Conclusions are limited by the current lack of quality clinical trials in this area.
PURPOSE: The aim of this review was to determine the effect of several potential local risk factors on implant survival and success (primary outcomes) as well as on mucosal recession, bleeding on probing, and proximal marginal bone loss (secondary outcomes). MATERIALS AND METHODS: A comprehensive review of the literature was conducted. The selection of publications reporting on human clinical studies was based on predetermined inclusion criteria and was agreed upon by three reviewers. After title and abstract screening of 2,681 publications obtained from the search, 19 articles were deemed to be relevant to the topic and the search criteria. RESULTS: Limited data show that when an implant is placed within 3 mm of the neighboring tooth, proximal bone is at risk. The data regarding the placement of implants into infected sites are still insufficient, but studies have shown that this may be possible. Soft tissue thickness has not been shown to be a risk factor in implant survival. There is also no evidence to support a relationship between the width of keratinized tissue and implant survival. No studies were found that directly related bone density to implant survival. Implant stability was also difficult to examine due to the lack of validated stability measures. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION: One critical factor that faced the group during the review of the literature and interpretation of the data was the multifactorial nature of implant therapy. This makes isolation of specific risk factors difficult. Conclusions are limited by the current lack of quality clinical trials in this area.