The cumulative survival rate of dental implants with micro-threads: a long-term retrospective study

Abstract

Purpose This study aimed to evaluate the long-term cumulative survival rate (CSR) of dental implants with micro-threads in the neck over a 10-year follow-up period and to examine the factors influencing the survival rate of dental implants. Methods This retrospective study was based on radiographic and dental records. In total, 151 patients received 490 Oneplant ® dental implants with an implant neck micro-thread design during 2006–2010 in the Department of Periodontology of Seoul National University Dental Hospital. Implant survival was evaluated using Kaplan–Meier analysis. Cox proportional hazard regression analysis was used to identify the factors influencing implant failure. Results Ten out of 490 implants (2.04%) failed due to fixture fracture. The CSR of the implants was 97.9%, and no significant difference was observed in the CSR between external- and internal-implant types (98.2% and 97.6%, respectively, P =0.670). In Cox regression analysis, 2-stage surgery significantly increased the risk of implant failure (hazard ratio: 4.769, P =0.039). There were no significant differences in influencing factors, including sex, age, implant diameter, length, fixture type, location, surgical procedure, bone grafting, and restoration type. Conclusions Within the limitations of this retrospective study, the micro-thread design of the implant neck was found to be favorable for implant survival, with stable clinical outcomes.

Implant Survival in The Anterior Mandible: A Retrospective Cohort Study

“…In this study, they found 30 failures out of 300 implants, with an overall success rate of 98%. Nam et al [5] found that the dental implants had a 97.9%. The customer satisfaction rates [CSRs] for both external and internal CSRs were 98.…”

“…In this study, the researchers looked at nine different things: [1] whether the patient was male or female, [2] how old the patient was when they got a dental implant, [3] whether the patient had some or all of their teeth missing in their lower jaw, [4] where in the jaw the implant was placed [front or back], [5] whether the implant was put in right away or after a delay, [6] the size and type of implant used, [7] the quality of the bone in the jaw, [8] the type of false teeth used, and [9] whether one or more implants were put in. We collected information about the implants when they were put in or when the artificial teeth were installed.…”