The risk factors for implant survival and marginal bone loss: a retrospective long-term study

Abstract

Purpose: This study aims to investigate the risk indicators contributing to implant failure, and analyze the relationship between risk indicators and marginal bone loss (MBL) through long-term follow-up over 3 years. Materials and Methods: From 2003 to 2017, patients' medical charts with a history of dental implant surgery at Chonnam National University Dental Hospital were reviewed retrospectively. The patient's demographic variables, and clinical variables were recorded. Periapical radiographs were used to evaluated the changes in MBL around implants. And we analyzed implant survival rates. Multiple regression analysis with backward elimination was conducted to correlate the patient's clinical variables and implant failure and Pearson correlation analysis was performed to the correlated between implant long-term survival rates and MBL and initial stability. Results: In multiple regression analysis, there was a statistically significant negative correlation between abutment connection type (β = -.189, P < .05), with or without SPT (β = -.163, P < .05), diabetes (β = -.164, P < .05), osteoporosis (β = -.211, P < .05) and MBL. Anticoagulant medication influenced the long-term success rate of implants. PTV values at the second implant surgery showed a statistically significant negative correlation with long-term implant survival (P < .05). Conclusion: For the long-term success of the implant, the appropriate abutment connection type must be selected and the periodic SPT is recommended. Systemic diseases such as diabetes and osteoporosis and anticoagulant medication should be considered. Furthermore, since high PTV at the second implant surgery correlated with the long-term survival rates of the implant, initial stability should be carefully considered before undergoing the prosthetic procedure.

A Retrospective Study on Implant Patients' Compliance with the Preventive Management Program

“…The area that received the most implant procedures was the maxillary posterior and mandible posterior, followed by the maxillary anterior and mandible anterior. This was similar to the results reported in previous papers [15,16] that the largest number of implants were planted in the order of mandible posterior, maxillary posterior, maxillary anterior, and mandible anterior. In addition, in the compliance classification according to implant location, the complete compliance group showed the highest compliance with maxillary anterior (p<0.05), maxillary posterior (p<0.05), and mandible posterior (p>0.05).…”