Literature DB >> 9586460

Long-term evaluation of non-submerged ITI implants. Part 1: 8-year life table analysis of a prospective multi-center study with 2359 implants.

D Buser1, R Mericske-Stern, J P Bernard, A Behneke, N Behneke, H P Hirt, U C Belser, N P Lang.   

Abstract

In the present multi-center study, non-submerged ITI implants were prospectively followed to evaluate their long-term prognosis in fully and partially edentulous patients. In a total of 1003 patients, 2359 implants were consecutively inserted. Following a healing period of 3-6 months, the successfully integrated implants were restored with 393 removable and 758 fixed restorations. Subsequently, all consecutive implants were documented annually up to 8 years. At each examination, the clinical status of all implants was evaluated according to predefined criteria of success. Therefore, the data base allowed the evaluation of 8-year cumulative survival and success rates for 2359 implants. In addition, cumulative success rates were calculated for implant subgroups divided per implant type, implant length, and implant location. Furthermore, the actual 5-year survival and success rates could be determined for 488 implants. During the healing period, 13 implants did not successfully integrate, whereas 2346 implants fulfilled the predefined criteria of success. This corresponds with an early failure rate of 0.55%. During follow-up, 19 implants were classified as failures due to several reasons. In addition, 17 implants (approximately 0.8%) demonstrated at the last annual examination a suppurative periimplant infection. Including 127 drop out implants (= 5.4% drop out rate) into the calculation, the 8-year cumulative survival and success rates resulted in 96.7% and 93.3%, respectively. The analysis of implant subgroups showed slightly more favorable cumulative success rates for screw type implants (> 95%) compared to hollow-cylinder implants (91.3%), and clearly better success rates for mandibular implants (approximately 95%) when compared to maxillary implants (approximately 87%). The actual 5-year survival and success rates of 488 implants with 98.2% and 97.3%, respectively, were slightly better than the estimated 5-year cumulative survival and success rates of 2359 implants indicating that the applied life table analysis is a reliable statistical method to evaluate the long-term prognosis of dental implants. It can be concluded that non-submerged ITI implants maintain success rates well above 90% in different clinical centers for observation periods up to 8 years.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  1997        PMID: 9586460     DOI: 10.1034/j.1600-0501.1997.080302.x

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Clin Oral Implants Res        ISSN: 0905-7161            Impact factor:   5.977


  88 in total

1.  Prosthetic rehabilitation in post-oncological patients: Report of two cases.

Authors:  Edoardo Brauner; Andrea Cassoni; Andrea Battisti; Davina Bartoli; Valentino Valentini
Journal:  Ann Stomatol (Roma)       Date:  2010-06-29

2.  Removal of a migrated dental implant from the maxillary sinus after 7 years: a case report.

Authors:  Antonio Scarano; Vittoria Perrotti; Francesco Carinci; Jamil Awad Shibli
Journal:  Oral Maxillofac Surg       Date:  2010-07-31

3.  Tooth-implant-supported posterior fixed dental prostheses with zirconia frameworks: 3-year clinical result.

Authors:  Florian Beuer; Caroline Sachs; Julian Groesser; Jan-Frederik Gueth; Michael Stimmelmayr
Journal:  Clin Oral Investig       Date:  2015-09-24       Impact factor: 3.573

4.  Predicting clustered dental implant survival using frailty methods.

Authors:  S-K Chuang; T Cai
Journal:  J Dent Res       Date:  2006-12       Impact factor: 6.116

5.  Investigation of peri-implant status and risk variables for implant failure in body of maxilla after oral tumor surgery.

Authors:  Nianjing Rao; Yingguang Cao; Wangping Wei
Journal:  J Huazhong Univ Sci Technolog Med Sci       Date:  2006

Review 6.  Matrices and scaffolds for drug delivery in dental, oral and craniofacial tissue engineering.

Authors:  Eduardo K Moioli; Paul A Clark; Xuejun Xin; Shan Lal; Jeremy J Mao
Journal:  Adv Drug Deliv Rev       Date:  2007-04-18       Impact factor: 15.470

7.  Comparison of maxillary implant-supported prosthesis in irradiated and non-irradiated patients.

Authors:  Yingguang Cao; Thomas Weischer
Journal:  J Huazhong Univ Sci Technolog Med Sci       Date:  2003

Review 8.  Infection, inflammation, and bone regeneration: a paradoxical relationship.

Authors:  M V Thomas; D A Puleo
Journal:  J Dent Res       Date:  2011-01-19       Impact factor: 6.116

9.  Factors determining the retentiveness of luting agents used with metal- and ceramic-based implant components.

Authors:  Cornelia Schiessl; Lina Schaefer; Christian Winter; Jan Fuerst; Martin Rosentritt; Florian Zeman; Michael Behr
Journal:  Clin Oral Investig       Date:  2012-07-31       Impact factor: 3.573

10.  Survival and Success of ITI Implants and Prostheses: Retrospective Study of Cases with 5-Year Follow-Up.

Authors:  Bilge Gokcen-Rohlig; Mehmet Yaltirik; Senem Ozer; Ebru Demet Tuncer; Gulumser Evlioglu
Journal:  Eur J Dent       Date:  2009-01
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.