S E Eckert1, P C Wollan. 1. Mayo Graduate School of Medicine, Rochester, Minn, USA.
Abstract
STATEMENT OF PROBLEM: Implant-supported restorations in the partially edentulous jaw have been performed at the Mayo Clinic for more than 10 years. Clinical performance of the implants and the prostheses should be reported to ensure effectiveness of this procedure. PURPOSE: This retrospective study described results for implant survival, implant fracture rate, prosthetic complications, and design changes that may impact these results. MATERIAL AND METHODS: A retrospective chart review was conducted of all registered implant patients in a large multispecialty medical center. Patients with a partially edentulous jaw who had received endosseous implants to support and retain dental prostheses were included in this review. Implant survival and fracture, prosthetic complications, and demographic data were recorded and analyzed through Kaplan-Meier methods. RESULTS: A total of 1170 implants were placed in four anatomic locations: anterior maxilla, posterior maxilla, anterior mandible, or posterior mandible. Location of implants was shown to have no effect on implant survival (p = 0.7398), implant fracture rates (p = 0.2385), screw loosening (p = 0.8253), or screw fracture (p = 0.2737). Development of new restorative components has resulted in significantly better rates of implant survival without fracture (p = 0.0054), screw function without loosening (p < 0.0001) and screw function without fracture (p = 0.0013). Implant survival seems to have been improved with the new components (p = 0.0513). CONCLUSIONS: Implant survival in this study was independent of anatomic location of implants. Virtually all clinical performance factors were improved by design changes in implant restorative components that were brought to market in early 1991.
STATEMENT OF PROBLEM: Implant-supported restorations in the partially edentulous jaw have been performed at the Mayo Clinic for more than 10 years. Clinical performance of the implants and the prostheses should be reported to ensure effectiveness of this procedure. PURPOSE: This retrospective study described results for implant survival, implant fracture rate, prosthetic complications, and design changes that may impact these results. MATERIAL AND METHODS: A retrospective chart review was conducted of all registered implant patients in a large multispecialty medical center. Patients with a partially edentulous jaw who had received endosseous implants to support and retain dental prostheses were included in this review. Implant survival and fracture, prosthetic complications, and demographic data were recorded and analyzed through Kaplan-Meier methods. RESULTS: A total of 1170 implants were placed in four anatomic locations: anterior maxilla, posterior maxilla, anterior mandible, or posterior mandible. Location of implants was shown to have no effect on implant survival (p = 0.7398), implant fracture rates (p = 0.2385), screw loosening (p = 0.8253), or screw fracture (p = 0.2737). Development of new restorative components has resulted in significantly better rates of implant survival without fracture (p = 0.0054), screw function without loosening (p < 0.0001) and screw function without fracture (p = 0.0013). Implant survival seems to have been improved with the new components (p = 0.0513). CONCLUSIONS: Implant survival in this study was independent of anatomic location of implants. Virtually all clinical performance factors were improved by design changes in implant restorative components that were brought to market in early 1991.