Long-term soft tissue outcomes for hydroxyapatite-coated bone-anchored hearing implant surgery

Surgical outcomes with the tissue preservation technique in bone‐anchored hearing implants: The Birmingham experience of ninety‐seven cases

“…Fixture failure rates reported in other studies have been similarly low 7‐9 and a recently published case series with a similar number of participants showed a 3% fixture failure rate 10 . Only 1/7 failures in this series was an early failure (before 4 years).…”

“…This likely explains increased failure rate compared to the much shorter follow-up in other studies. [7][8][9][10] Adverse soft tissue reactions recorded in this study (3.9% over the whole follow-up period) were low and compared favourably to those recorded in other studies published, between 2.4%-28%. 3,[7][8][9][10] It is likely that the longer follow-up period reduced the percentage of adverse Holgers' scores recorded in this study, as the majority of adverse Holgers' scores were recorded at one week post-operation.…”

“…Only 1/7 failures in this series was an early failure (before 4 years). This likely explains increased failure rate compared to the much shorter follow‐up in other studies 7‐10 …”

Long-Term Outcomes of a Percutaneous Wide-Diameter Bone-Anchored Hearing Implant: A Clinical Evaluation of More than 800 Implants

“…This implant has a wider diameter of 4.5 mm as opposed to the 3.75 mm of the previous generation implant, resulting in an enlarged bone-to-implant contact area, suggesting higher implant stability and survival (8)(9)(10). Previously reported survival rates for widediameter implants vary between 93.8 and 100% (9)(10)(11)(12)(13)(14)(15) and seem superior to the 74.1% to 100% (10,13,(16)(17)(18)(19) of previous generation implants. However, these percentages cannot be appropriately compared because available studies on wide-diameter implants lack sufficient sample sizes and follow-up time.…”

Human stem cell response to layered zirconium phosphate

“…2,3 Thus, hydroxyapatite has been studied for use as a bone repair material, percutaneous terminal, and coating material on catheter surfaces. [4][5][6] In recent years, the development of bioactive ceramics with high functionality has aimed to facilitate multifunctionality such as enhancement of tissue regeneration and antibacterial action. [7][8][9] Although surface modication of ceramics has been attempted to incorporate organic molecules and inorganic ions as biological factors to enhance bone-formation or facilitate antibacterial properties, it has been difficult to derive satisfactory physiological functions from conventional bioactive ceramic materials.…”