Role of supportive maintenance therapy on implant survival: a university‐based 17 years retrospective analysis

Abstract

Role of supportive maintenance therapy on implant survival: a university-based 17 years retrospective analysis. Role of supportive maintenance therapy on implant survival: a university-based 17 years retrospective analysis Abstract: Objective: The objective of this study was to determine whether professional maintenance appointments were related to a decrease on dental implant loss. Methods: We performed a retrospective review (1995)(1996)(1997)(1998)(1999)(2000)(2001)(2002)(2003)(2004)(2005)(2006)(2007)(2008)(2009)(2010)(2011)(2012) of 1020 patient dental charts to collect data including a cadre of different variables such as age, gender, race, diabetes, osteoporosis, jaw location, implant dimensions and professional maintenance therapy. As a patient may have multiple implants which are correlated, we selected one random implant per patient to assure independence of observations assumption of the Cox proportional hazards regression model. Data analysis was performed using Kaplan-Meier survival curves and multivariate analysis using Cox proportional hazards regression analysis. Results: Our results demonstrate that subjects with no maintenance had the lowest cumulative survival rate as compared to subjects with regular maintenance. In a multivariate Cox regression model, regular maintenance patients had the dental implant failure rate reduced by 90% as compared to no maintenance (P = 0.001). If patients had less than one maintenance visit per year, the failure rate was reduced by 60% as compared to no maintenance, but the difference was not statistically significant (P = 0.08). Conclusion: From this research, we conclude that a professional administered periodontal maintenance at least on an annual basis is a critical factor for implant survival.

Association of Preventive Maintenance Therapy Compliance and Peri‐Implant Diseases: A Cross‐Sectional Study

“…For instance, it was demonstrated that dental implant failure rate was reduced by 90% in patients who had regular maintenance versus no maintenance. Additionally, for “patients that had <1 maintenance visit/year, failure rate was reduced by 60% compared with no maintenance.” 25 In this respect, it has been reported that patients attending to routine PIMT are significantly less exposed to peri‐implant bone loss progression 12,26 . In a comparative 12‐month study, it was found that PIMT every 4 months potentially reduces risk of developing peri‐implantitis compared with no PIMT (3.7% versus 22.7% at patient level, respectively) 27 .…”

The significance of surgically modifying soft tissue phenotype around fixed dental prostheses: An American Academy of Periodontology best evidence review

“…Increasing the soft tissue thickness provides the advantages of decreasing the soft tissue discoloration and show‐through when a patient has a thin tissue phenotype and the implant or abutment is visible through the tissue. The thickened tissue also provides the restorative dentist more tissue volume by which to develop more idealized crown contours, which has both esthetic and biologic advantages . When the soft tissue phenotype is thin, ridge lapping is often necessary which limits access for cleaning and is not stable esthetically .…”

American Academy of Periodontology best evidence consensus statement on modifying periodontal phenotype in preparation for orthodontic and restorative treatment

“… ∘Predictably increases soft tissue thickness by 1 mm which decreases show‐through of restorations, abutments, and/or implants ∘Corrects ridge deficiencies to provide a more harmonious soft tissue architecture with adjacent teeth and prosthesis ∘Is often helpful in pontic sites to create a thicker tissue that can be contoured for improved esthetics …”