Survival of Dental Implants Placed in Grafted and Nongrafted Bone: A Retrospective Study in a University Setting

Abstract

To compare dental implant survival rates when placed in native bone and grafted sites. Additionally, risk factors associated with dental implant loss were identified. This study was based on the hypothesis that bone grafting has no effect on implant survival rates. Materials and Methods: A retrospective chart review was conducted for patients receiving dental implants at the University of Texas, School of Dentistry from 1985 to 2012. Exclusion criteria included patients with genetic diseases, radiation and chemotherapy, or an age less than 18 years. To avoid misclassification bias, implants were excluded if bone grafts were only done at the same time of placement. Data on age, sex, tobacco use, diabetes, osteoporosis, anatomical location of the implant, implant length and width, bone graft, and professional maintenance were collected for analysis. Results: A total of 1,222 patients with 2,729 implants were included. The cumulative survival rates at 5 and 10 years were 92% and 87% for implants placed in native bone and 90% and 79% for implants placed in grafted bone, respectively. The results from multivariate analysis (Cox regression) indicated no significant difference in survival between the two groups; having maintenance therapy after implant placement reduced the failure rate by 80% (P < .001), and using tobacco increased the failure rate by 2.6-fold (P = .001). Conclusion: There was no difference in the dental implant survival rate when implants were placed in native bone or bone-grafted sites. Smoking and lack of professional maintenance were significantly related to increased implant loss.

Risk factors for implant failure: a retrospective study in an educational institution using GEE analyses

“…However, a statistically significant association between implant failure and bone augmentation was not found in the present study, although other studies have demonstrated more failures in these sites. 33 Tonetti et al 34 have highlighted that bone augmentation may present complications inherent to the implant technique and that implants placed in these areas do not present high long-term survival rates as those placed in natural bone areas.…”

Long‐term biological complications of dental implants placed either in pristine or in augmented sites: A systematic review and meta‐analysis

“…Recently, controversial data on the long‐term survival rates of implants placed in augmented vs. pristine bone have been reported (Chappuis, Cavusoglu, Buser, & von Arx, ; Daubert, Weinstein, Bordin, Leroux, & Flemmig, ; Tran et al., ; Urban et al., ; Visser, Stellingsma, Raghoebar, Meijer, & Vissink, ). For example, while some studies showed comparable outcomes in terms of implant survival rates and crestal bone loss (Chappuis et al., ; Urban et al., ), other studies reported inferior outcomes for implants placed in augmented sites (Daubert et al., ; Tran et al., ; Visser et al., ).…”

Comparison of Peri‐Implant Soft Tissue Parameters and Crestal Bone Loss Around Immediately Loaded and Delayed Loaded Implants in Smokers and Non‐Smokers: 5‐Year Follow‐Up Results

“…Heat and toxic by‐products of cigarette smoking, such as nicotine and carbon monoxide, have been associated with impaired cell proliferation and healing 12 . Evidence has shown an association between smoking and implant‐related parameters, including impaired healing, higher postoperative complications, increased peri‐implant bone loss and failure rate of implants placed in grafted bone, reduced mineral density, and poor papilla regeneration 13–17 . In a recent systematic review, Keenan and Veitz‐Keenan 18 reported higher failure rates, risk of postoperative infections, and CBL in implants placed in smokers compared with non‐smokers.…”