Implant Success versus Implant Survival

Negm, Shady Am

doi:10.4172/2161-1122.1000359

Cited by 3 publications

(3 citation statements)

References 4 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Group (II) value measured at baseline was significantly higher than that measured at 6months. This is in agreement with what is obtained in other reports (Van and Wilson, 1991;Negm, 2016). CONCLUSION According to the limitation of the study we concluded the following:…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 93%

Clinical and Radiographic Evaluation of two Different Macro Designs Zirconia Root Form Implants

2020

Ain Shams Dental Journal

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose: Due to advantageous of zirconia root form implant (ZRFI) as low affinity to plaque and favorable biomechanical and esthetic properties, zirconia was a material of choice for replacing remaining root instead of titanium. Material and methods: This were a randomized controlled clinical trial conducted on twenty patients with twenty anterior maxillary remining teeth which needed to be replaced with dental implants. The Patients were randomly divided into 2 groups. Group 1 included 10 patients who received zirconia dental implants with oval surface macro retention while group 2 included 10 patients who received zirconia dental implants with round surface macro retention. Each patient received the zirconia root form implant which was fabricated from the remaining root by cone beam competed topography and CAD/CAM machine then immediately placement of implant after extraction. Result: For the clinical parameters measured, including the propping depth (PD), modified plaque index (mPI) and modified bleeding index (mBI), it was shown that the oval and round group had no effect on the results as no significant. For the radiographically measured there was a stable and non-significance increase in bucco-lingual width. And loss in marginal bone level after 6 months of follow-up. Periotest evaluation showed increase in stability and osseointegration with (ZRFI). Conclusion: (ZRFI) is a new successful modality for immediate replacement of teeth with no difference regarding oval or round macro-retention features. (ZRFI) is associated with improved stability over time.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 93%

Clinical and Radiographic Evaluation of two Different Macro Designs Zirconia Root Form Implants

2020

Ain Shams Dental Journal

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…It is of importance to differentiate these two terms in order to facilitate the same quality and outcome data within all studies. “Implant survival” is defined as implant and fixed prosthesis present in the mouth regardless of biological and technical complications, while “implant success” involves both clinical (PD, mBI, and modified plaque index) and radiological aspects [ 55-57 ]. The survival rates of modern implantology are considered high and predictable.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Immediate Implant Placement in Non-Infected Sockets versus Infected Sockets: a Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Saijeva¹,

Juodžbalys

2020

JOMR

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objectives The aim of this systematic review is to compare immediate implant placement in infected extraction sockets with non-infected extraction sockets in terms of implant survival and function. Material and Methods An electronic search was conducted in PubMed, ScienceDirect, ISI Web of Knowledge and Google Scholar between January 2010 and February 2020. Studies evaluating implant survival rate and main clinical parameters were included for a qualitative and quantitative analysis. Results In total, nine studies were included and a pool of 2281 sockets were analysed. Compared with the non-infected group, the infected group showed no significant differences in implant survival rates (risk ratio [RR] = 0.99; 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.98 to 1; P = 0.08). No significant statistical differences were found in marginal bone level (mean difference [MD] = -0.03; 95% CI = -0.1 to 0.04; P = 0.41), marginal gingival level (MD = -0.07; 95% CI = -0.17 to 0.04; P = 0.23), probing depth (MD = 0.06; 95% CI = -0.24 to 0.36; P = 0.7), modified bleeding index (MD = -0.00162196; 95% CI = -0.09 to 0.09; P = 0.97) and slight but significant changes were seen in width of keratinized gingiva (MD = 0.25; 95% CI = -0.3 to 0.8; P = 0.38) between the groups at the latest follow-up. Conclusions There were no significant difference in implant survival rates, marginal bone level, marginal gingival level, modified bleeding index and probing depth between infected sockets and non-infected sockets. However, slight but significant changes were seen in width of keratinized gingiva favouring the non-infected group.

show abstract

“…The long-term dental implant prognosis is determined by, among other factors, the assessment of the risk factors in the planning stage and by stabilizing or removing preexisting oral diseases prior to the start of implant surgery. In this context, the outcome of implant prosthetic treatment is influenced by various factors as follows: implant-related factors (previous implant failure, implant surface status, degree of exposure to the oral environment); mechanical factors (premature loading, occlusal trauma); patient-related factors (level of oral hygiene, periodontal tissue condition, peri-implant bone condition, distance to adjacent teeth, periodontal status of adjacent teeth, soft tissue condition); systemic factors (smoking, age-related pathology, nutritional deficiencies, diabetes, steroid therapy, chemotherapy or radiotherapy); and surgical technique factors [1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Assessment of Various Risk Factors for Biological and Mechanical/Technical Complications in Fixed Implant Prosthetic Therapy: A Retrospective Study

Bardis

Agop-Forna

Pelekanos³

et al. 2023

Diagnostics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The goals of this research were to determine the influence of several factors on implants’ biological and technical complications in posterior fixed implant prosthetic therapy. Materials and methods: The study group consisted of 67 edentulous patients (mean age: 63.88 ± 11.709 yrs; 20 males, 47 females) with implant prosthetic therapy for posterior edentulism. A total of 76 implant-supported fixed partial dentures (IP-FPDs) and 178 implants were assessed using clinical and paraclinical assessments. Risk factors for biological complications (peri-implantitis) and technical complications were determined by using the Pearson Chi-squared test and multivariate analysis. Results: The implant success (the absence of biological and mechanical/technical complications) was 66.30%. The prevalence of biological complications was 13.5%. The prevalence of technical complications was 28.70%. Variables that were associated with a higher risk of peri-implantitis were poor oral hygiene and bruxism. In univariate analysis, poor oral hygiene increased the risk of peri-implantitis 5.778 times and bruxism 5.875 times. Variables that were associated with a higher risk of mechanical/technical complications were age group > 60 yrs, smoking, history of periodontal disease, and bruxism. In univariate analysis, the risk of technical complications increased 4.14 times for patients in the age group > 60 years (vs. age group 40–60 years) and 20.5 times for patients with bruxism. Bruxism and smoking were significant predictors of mechanical/technical complications in the multivariate model. Conclusions: In univariate models, patients with poor oral hygiene and bruxism have an increased risk of peri-implantitis. In multivariate models, we did not identify significant predictors of peri-implantitis. Age group > 60 yrs, smoking, history of periodontal disease, bone grafting, and bruxism are risk factors for the increase in the mechanical/technical complication rate. In the multivariate model, smoking and bruxism are significant predictors of the mechanical/technical complications.

show abstract

Implant Success versus Implant Survival

Cited by 3 publications

References 4 publications

Clinical and Radiographic Evaluation of two Different Macro Designs Zirconia Root Form Implants

Clinical and Radiographic Evaluation of two Different Macro Designs Zirconia Root Form Implants

Immediate Implant Placement in Non-Infected Sockets versus Infected Sockets: a Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Assessment of Various Risk Factors for Biological and Mechanical/Technical Complications in Fixed Implant Prosthetic Therapy: A Retrospective Study

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About