Data on implant failures will show different results depending on how patients are compiled and analyzed: A retrospective study on 3902 individual patients treated either with one single implant or implants in the edentulous upper jaw

Abstract

Purpose The basic aim of the present study was to analyze the results of implant failures in two different implant populations, and how these results may vary depending on how the data are compiled and analyzed. Materials and Methods Two groups of consecutively treated patients were included who had been provided with either one single implant in a partially edentulous upper jaw (1881 patients) or four to eight implants in an edentulous upper jaw (2031 patients/12 454 implants). The risk of implant failure in the two groups separately and in combination was statistically compared by using uni‐ and multivariable analyses. Results The two groups showed significant differences in inclusion, surgical treatment protocols, and the risk of implant failures (P < .05). Overall, 25‐year patient‐level cumulative survival rates (CSRs) were 75.8% and 96.3% for edentulous and single implant treatment, respectively. “Dental condition” was the variable associated with the greatest risk of implant failure (HR 6.00; edentulous). Only one variable was significantly associated with the risk of implant failure in all tested groups (“time after surgery”; a decreased risk was observed over time), and more variables were statistically associated with implant failures in the edentulous group than in the single implant group. Conclusions Edentulous patients present a significantly and substantially higher risk of implant failures than patients provided with a single implant. When patients with different clinical conditions are pooled into the same group, patients with the most common condition in the total group have greatest impact on the result of the total group. Based on the present observations, risk patterns for a certain oral condition are not necessarily comparable with the implant treatment received by other patients, and the external validity may be limited in small, homogeneous groups of patients.

Accuracy of half-way mucosa-supported implant guides for edentulous jaws: a retrospective study with a median follow-up of 2 years

“…3,21 The subsequent free-hand implant hole shaping can simply enlarge the pilot hole, but adjustments can also be made based on the surgeon's experience to avoid lateral alveolar perforation or breakage. 22 Several limitations of this study should be acknowledged. First, this was a retrospective study with inherent limitations.…”

“… 3 , 21 The subsequent free-hand implant hole shaping can simply enlarge the pilot hole, but adjustments can also be made based on the surgeon’s experience to avoid lateral alveolar perforation or breakage. 22 …”

Comparing factors affecting dental‐implant loss between age groups: A retrospective cohort study

“…The causal explanation of implant failure is more complex and is what many studies are trying to report. It is speculated that failure of an implant may occur as a result of a combination of multiple factors and the evaluation of this association may cause variations in the results depending on the chosen statistical method 32 . In a recent study, the authors demonstrated better results were obtained using the Bayesian statistical method relative to classical statistical analysis 33 .…”

What is the influence of implant surface characteristics and/or implant material on the incidence and progression of peri‐implantitis? A systematic literature review

“…The 31 publications on clinical studies, regarded 20 RCTs (Table 2) (Akoglu et al, 2011;Burtscher et al, 2015;Cehreli et al, 2010;Donati et al, 2018;Gotfredsen, & Karlsson, 2001;Ioannidis et al, 2019;Jacobs et al, 2010;Koller et al, 2020;Lee et al, 2016;Ma et al, 2010;Mau et al, 2002Mau et al, , 2003Meijer et al, 2009;Menini et al, 2015;Nickenig et al, 2013;Raes et al, 2018;Ravald et al, 2013;Roccuzzo et al, 2008;Vroom et al, 2009;Wennström et al, 2004;Zetterqvist et al, 2010), 3 prospective non-randomized CTs (Table 3) (Bornstein et al, 2008;De Angelis et al, 2020;Guarnieri et al, 2018), 4 PCs (Table 4) (Baelum, & Ellegaard, 2004;Friberg, & Jemt, 2015;Meijer et al, 2014;Tymstra et al, 2012) and 4 RSs (Table 5) (Jemt, 2020;Maló et al, 2016;Wada et al, 2019;Wagenberg et al, 2013).…”

“…The 4 publications reporting on RSs included 541-3912 patients each (5630 patients in total), who had received 21,133 implants; follow-up time ranged from 1 to 30 years, with 3 publications reporting on an average follow-up time of about 8 years or more (Jemt, 2020;Maló et al, 2016;Wagenberg et al, 2013) (Table 5). In 3 publications (Jemt, 2020;Maló et al, 2016;Wagenberg et al, 2013), implants with turned and with modified surface were included, while the last publication (Wada et al, 2019) reported on implants with various type of modified surfaces. The majority of patients were fully edentulous, and implants supported both fixed and removable den-…”