Final steps to becoming a BSAVA standard practice.

H. Locke

2002-03-01

Journal of Small Animal Practice

Abstract:

What problem does this paper attempt to address?

A retrospective analysis of risk factors for early implant failure

Qiuping YE,Fengjia LIU,Shuhua YE,Guofen LIN,Fuming HE

DOI: https://doi.org/10.13591/j.cnki.kqyx.2018.02.010

2018-01-01

Abstract:Objective To retrospectively analyze risk factors which influence early implant failure under a large sample data. Meth?ods A total of 8 852 patients with 15 204 dental implants were collected from The Affiliated Stomatology Hospital, School of Medi-cine,Zhejiang University during the years of 2011-2015,which included 4 413 males and 4 439 females,11 899 Straumann group im-plants,1 993 Nobel group implants and 1 312 Ankylos group implants. Age,gender,location,implant brands,implant size and bone augmentation procedures were recorded. Chi square test was used to identify risk factors associated with early implant failure. Results Ninety-seven implants in 83 patients failed before or at the provisional restorations,and the 5-year early implant failure rate was 0.64%. After 2013,the early failure rate of implants decreased year by year,and there was no significant difference between the early failure rates of implant systems. The early failure rate of male patients was significantly higher than that of female patients,and the failure rate of patients over 61 was significantly higher than that of patients within 41~60 and below 40. The number of implants in mandibular an-terior area was the smallest,while the failure rate of implant was significantly higher than that in other areas. The failure rate of narrow-diameter implant(≤3.5 mm)was higher than that of regular-diameter and wide-diameter implant,while the early failure rate of long implant(>13 mm)was significantly lower than the other two lengths of implants. Conclusions Elderly male patients are more likely to develop early implant failure.The early failure rates of narrow-diameter implants,short implants and implants at the mandibular ante-rior are much higher.
A Retrospective Study of 30,959 Implants: Risk Factors Associated with Early and Late Implant Loss

Guofen Lin,Shuhua Ye,Fengjia Liu,Fuming He

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/jcpe.12898

IF: 7.478

2018-01-01

Journal Of Clinical Periodontology

Abstract:AIM:This retrospective study assessed the risk factors associated with early and late implant loss at the patient- and implant-based analysis.MATERIALS AND METHODS:A total of 18,199 patients received 30,959 dental implants during the years 2011-2015. Age, gender, jaw, location, implant brands, implant length and diameter, bone augmentation procedures, and the number of implants placed per patient were recorded. A multivariate generalized estimating equation (GEE) logistic regression was used to identify risk factors related to both early and late implant loss.RESULTS:The cumulative survival rates were 98.0% for patients and 98.7% for implants after 1-6 years observation time. A total of 183 patients with 194 implants were lost before or at the abutment connection, and 193 patients with 209 implants were lost after occlusal loading of the implant fixture. The multivariable GEE logistic regression showed that males, patients aged ≥41 years, and mandibular anterior location were risk factors for early implant loss. In the case of late implant loss, males, patients aged ≥41 years, bone augmentation and short implants were correlated with a significantly increased failure rate.CONCLUSIONS:General factors such as male sex, elderly patients, mandibular anterior location, bone augmentation and short implants were associated with implant loss.
Analysis of Implant Loss Risk Factors after Simultaneous Guided Bone Regeneration: A Retrospective Study of 5404 Dental Implants

Xiaoting Shen,Sijia Yang,Yangbo Xu,Jiangang Xu,Yi Feng,Fuming He

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/cid.13087

2022-01-01

Clinical Implant Dentistry and Related Research

Abstract:Purpose The purpose was to analyze the risk factors for implant loss after simultaneous guided bone regeneration (GBR). Materials and Methods Patients who underwent implant placement with simultaneous GBR between January 2011 and December 2018 were screened for this study. The cumulative survival rate (CSR) was calculated using the life table method. Log-rank test and Kaplan-Meier survival estimates were used to identify potential risk factors for implant loss. The association between the investigated variables and implant loss was determined using hazard ratios (HRs) obtained from a multivariate Cox regression analysis. Results A total of 3973 patients with 5404 implants were included in this study. The CSRs of the implants at 1, 5, and 10 years were 99.6%, 98.9%, and 98.7%, respectively. Male patient (HR = 2.94, 95% CI: 1.41-6.14), periodontitis (HR = 4.26, 95% CI: 2.05-9.86), tissue-level implants (HR = 3.02, 95% CI: 1.30-6.98), narrow implants (HR = 2.71, 95% CI: 1.12-6.57), and implant length <= 10 mm (HR = 2.91, 95% CI: 1.41-6.02) significantly increased the risk of implant loss (p < 0.05). The risk of implant loss was significantly higher in the maxillary posterior region (HR = 2.26, 95% CI: 1.04-4.90) than in the maxillary anterior region (p < 0.05). Compared to Straumann, Nobel (HR = 4.07, 95% CI: 1.75-9.44) and other implant systems (HR = 14.23, 95% CI: 4.32-46.85) showed a significantly higher risk of implant loss (p < 0.05). Conclusion Male patient, periodontitis, maxillary posterior region, Nobel implant system, other implant systems, tissue-level implants, narrow implants, and implant length <= 10 mm were considered risk factors for implant loss after simultaneous GBR.
Retrospective Study of Short Versus Standard Posterior Implants and Analysis of Implant Failure Risk Factors

Yu Wang,Jin Jiang,Ye Guan,Misi Si,Fuming He

DOI: https://doi.org/10.11607/jomi.8930

2021-01-01

Abstract:Purpose: To compare the clinical and radiographic outcomes of short implants 8 mm) vs standard implants (> 8 mm, < 10 mm) and to uncover risk factors influencing implant failure in short implants. Materials and Methods: Short and standard implants were compared in the aspect of survival rates, biologic and mechanical complications, and marginal bone loss. To analyze risk factors of implant failure in short implants, several variables were taken into consideration, including sex, age, time interval, arch, implant brand, additional surgery, prosthesis material, restoration, smoking status, and crown-root ratio. Results: Three hundred twenty-one short implants and 136 standard implants were retrospectively followed up from 12 to 104 months with an average of 40 months (3.33 years) in short implants and 34 months (2.83 years) in standard implants. The survival rates of short implants were 95.6% at the implant-based analysis and 94.9% at the patient-based analysis, and rates of 96.3% and 94.0%, respectively, were calculated for standard implants. No statistically significant differences were observed between short and standard implants with respect to survival rate, complications, or marginal bone loss. The failure rates were 4.2% for implants and 5.4% for patients in total implants with an average of 38 months (3.17 years). In analyzing risk factors of short implants for survival rate, single short implants resulted in a higher failure rate compared with splinted short implants, while no significant variable was found in standard implants. Conclusion: Short implants tend to be a reliable alternative in atrophic posterior regions. Splinted prostheses were more ideal for short implant restorations.
The Risk Factors in Early Failure of Dental Implants: a Retrospective Study

Hassan Mohajerani,Roozbeh Roozbayani,Shahram Taherian,Reza Tabrizi

Abstract:Statement of the problem: Despite the low failure rate of dental implants, recognition of the risk factors can enhance the predictability of failure. Purpose: The aim of this study was to evaluate the risk factors for early implant failure. Materials and method: This retrospective cohort study was conducted on two groups of patients, the patients with a failed implant before loading and those without a failed implant. Age, gender, implant type, implant surface, implant length, bone type, type of surgery (one- or two-stage) and immediate (fresh socket) or delayed placement of implant were the variables to be assessed in this study. Results: Out of the 1,093 evaluated implants, 73 cases (6.68%) failed in early stages. The two groups were significantly different in terms of implant surface, fresh socket placement, prophylactic use of antibiotics, and bone density (p< 0.05). Age, gender, implant height, implant type (cylindrical or tapered) and one-stage or two-stage placement were not significantly different between the two groups (p> 0.05). Conclusion: It seems that prophylactic antibiotic therapy, implant surface, bone density and placement in fresh extraction socket may contribute to dental implant failure.
Potential risk factors for early and late dental implant failure: a retrospective clinical study on 9080 implants

Henning Staedt,Martin Rossa,Karl Martin Lehmann,Bilal Al-Nawas,Peer W. Kämmerer,Diana Heimes

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s40729-020-00276-w

2020-11-30

International Journal of Implant Dentistry

Abstract:Abstract Background The aim of this study was to analyze potential risk factors for early and late dental implant failure (DIF) in a clinical cohort trial. In a private practice, 9080 implants were inserted during a period of 10 years. In case of DIF, data were classified into early and late DIF and compared to each other in regard of gender, age, site of implantation, implant geometry, and patients’ systemic diseases. Results Three hundred fifty-one implants failed within the observation period (survival rate: 96.13%). Early DIF occurred in 293 implants (83.48%) compared to late DIF in 58 implants (16.52%). Significant earlier DIF was seen in the mandible (OR = 3.729, p < 0.001)—especially in the posterior area—and in younger patients ( p = 0.017), whereas an increased likelihood of late DIF was associated with maxillary implants (OR = 3.729, p < 0.001) and older patients. Conclusions Early DIF is about twice as common as late DIF. Main risk factors for early DIF are implant location in the (posterior) mandible as well as younger age. On contrary, late DIF is rather associated with older patients, cancellous bone quality, and longer implants.

dentistry, oral surgery & medicine
Analysis of risk factors related to early implant failure: A retrospective study

Zhe-Zhen Lin,Zheng-Ting Jiang,Sheng-Rui Jia,Xi Ding

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.prosdent.2024.04.026

IF: 4.148

2024-05-26

Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry

Abstract:Statement of problem Factors influencing early implant failure (failure during the healing period) in the rehabilitation and restoration of oral function in partially edentulous patients are unclear. Purpose The purpose of this clinical study was to investigate several factors that may be associated with early implant failure. Material and methods This retrospective study was conducted on 3247 implants in 2061 patients between 2009 and 2022. Patient-related and surgery-related factors, including smoking; sex; diabetes; bone grafting; implant length, diameter, and design; adjacent teeth; and insertion torque, were manually retrieved and analyzed. Using univariate and multivariate analyses, a generalized estimating equation (GEE) model with chi-squared tests was employed to evaluate factors related to early implant failure (the failure before restoration) (α=.05). Results The mean ±standard deviation age of the study patients was 49.2 ±15.0 years (range 18 to 91). Ninety-nine implants (3.05%) failed during the healing period. Three factors were statistically significant regarding early implant failure: smoking (odds ratio [OR]=1.92, P =.008), implant design (tapered implants) (OR=1.84, P =.007), and implant length <10 mm (OR=2.98, P =.011). Factors including diabetes, bone grafting, anatomic location, adjacent teeth (endodontic therapy in the adjacent teeth and the distance between implant and adjacent teeth), healing method, and insertion torque did not exhibit a statistically significant higher early implant failure rate. Ninety-three sites with failed implants received new implants, and 6 of these 93 implants failed during the healing period. Conclusions Within the limitation of sample size, smokers, implant length (<10 mm), and implant design (tapered implant) exhibited higher risk of early implant failure in this retrospective study. Implant insertion torque, healing method, adjacent teeth, and diabetes did not significantly influence the risk of early implant failure.

dentistry, oral surgery & medicine
Long non-coding RNA CRNDE is a novel tumor promoter by modulating PI3K/AKT signal pathways in human gastric cancer.

D-X Du,D. Lian,B. Amin,W. Yan

DOI: https://doi.org/10.26355/eurrev_201712_13925

2017-12-01

European review for medical and pharmacological sciences

Abstract:OBJECTIVE Long non-coding RNA CRNDE (CRNDE) recently emerged as a carcinogenic promoter in various cancers including gastric cancer (GC). However, the functions and molecular mechanisms of CRNDE to GC are still largely unclear. The aim of this study was to investigate the clinical significance and functional mechanisms of CRNDE expression in GC. PATIENTS AND METHODS The expression of CRNDE was detected by quantitative Real-time PCR (qRT-PCR) in GC specimens and cell lines. The correlation between the CRNDE expression and clinicopathological parameters was investigated. Survival rate was determined with Kaplan-Meier and statistically analyzed with the log-rank method between groups. Subsequently, the significance of survival variables was analyzed using the Cox multivariate proportional hazards model. Then, MTT and Transwell assays were used to assess cell proliferation, migration and invasion capacity. Finally, Western blot analysis was performed to explore the effects of CRNDE knockdown on the PI3K/Akt pathway. RESULTS We observed that expression of CRNDE was higher in GC tissues and cells compared with the normal gastric tissue and normal gastric cell lines. High expression of CRNDE was correlated with invasion depth (p = 0.006), TNM stage (p = 0.010) and lymph node metastasis (p = 0.005). Furthermore, high CRNDE expression was associated with shorter overall survival (p = 0.0066) of GC patients. Multivariate analysis confirmed that high CRNDE expression was a significant independent predictor of poor survival in GC. In vitro assay indicated that knockdown of CRNDE inhibited cell proliferation, migration and invasion of GC. Finally, the data of Western blot showed that CRNDE exerted its oncogenic role by affecting PI3K/AKT signaling pathways. CONCLUSIONS Our findings indicate that CRNDE plays an important role in promoting GC progression and may represent a novel prognostic biomarker in GC.
High‐dose intrathecal diamorphine for analgesia after Caesarean section

R. Stacey,R. Jones,G. Kar,A. Poon

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-2044.2001.01763-3.x

IF: 12.893

2001-01-01

Anaesthesia

Abstract:Forty women undergoing elective Caesarean section under spinal anaesthesia using hyperbaric 0.5% bupivacaine were randomly allocated to receive either 0.5 mg or 1 mg intrathecal diamorphine. All women received diclofenac 100 mg at the end of surgery and morphine via a patient‐controlled analgesia system. Oral analgesics were not used. Postoperative analgesia was more prolonged and more reliable in the 1‐mg group. Mean time to first analgesia was 10.2 h in the 1‐mg group and 6.9 h in the 0.5‐mg group, and 45% in the 1‐mg group used no morphine, compared with 10% in the 0.5‐mg group. Mean morphine consumption over 24 h was 5.2 mg in the 1‐mg group and 10.6 mg in the 0.5‐mg group. Pain scores all tended to be lower in the 1‐mg group but this was only significant at 4 h. There were no serious side‐effects. Minor side‐effects were common but well tolerated, and the incidence did not differ between the groups. If intrathecal diamorphine is used in combination with rectal diclofenac and without oral analgesia, then 1 mg provides superior analgesia to 0.5 mg without any worsening of the side‐effects.
Risk Factors for Early Dental Implant Failure

Anja Nilsen Nyland,Stein Atle Lie,Cecilie Gudveig Gjerde,Anja Nyland,Stein Lie,Cecilie Gjerde

DOI: https://doi.org/10.11607/jomi.10418

2024-02-27

The International Journal of Oral & Maxillofacial Implants

Abstract:PURPOSE: To report the prevalence of early implant failure and evaluate factors that contribute to the early failure of dental implants placed at a teaching clinic. The study also aims to identify risk indicators for early implant loss to better predict and prevent early implant loss in the future.MATERIALS AND METHODS: This retrospective study included all patients with a dental implant placed by the Section of Oral Surgery and Oral Medicine, Department of Clinical Dentistry, University of Bergen, between January 2011 and December 2018. All information was collected from operation logbooks and from patient records. A failed implant in this study was defined as an implant lost before functional loading.RESULTS: A total of 1,005 dental implants were placed in the studied time period, of which 54 failed early, giving an early failure rate (EFR) of 5.4%, with functional loading obtained for the remaining 94.6%. Analysis showed an increased hazard for early implant failure among smokers, men, and younger patients. With an age increase of 10 years, the risk of implant failure was reduced by 14% (hazard ratio [HRR] = 0.86, P = .037). A higher failure rate was found in anterior maxillary implants than in posterior maxillary implants (7.79% vs 3.29%, respectively; HRR = 0.47; P = .041). The probability for early failure in the posterior mandible was significantly increased compared to the posterior maxilla (HRR = 3.68, P = .005). If the first implant failed, it was more likely that the consecutive implant would also fail (HRR = 1.82). In the study, 53.4% of the placed implants were Straumann (EFR = 5.2%), 30.3% were Nobel Biocare (EFR = 7.2%), and 16.3% were Astra Tech (EFR = 2.5%).CONCLUSIONS: This study found that younger, male, and smoker patients were associated with an increase in early failure of dental implants. Significantly increased failure rates were also seen for implants placed in the mandible, and there were differences with respect to implant system. Although differences were found in early failure both for patient- and implant-related factors, the overall early failure rate (5.4%) in this study was low.

dentistry, oral surgery & medicine
Prosthetically guided oral implant surgery. A retrospective cohort study evaluating the 5-year surgical outcome

Andreas Sakkas,Stefan Westendorf,Oliver Christian Thiele,Alexander Schramm,Frank Wilde,Sebastian Pietzka

DOI: https://doi.org/10.3205/iprs000176

2023-08-18

Abstract:Purpose: This study primarily evaluated the 5-year implant survival and success rate of prosthetically guided inserted implants. The secondary aim was to evaluate the impact of clinical variables on the development of mucositis, peri-implant bone resorption, peri-implantitis, as well as early and late implant failure. Materials and methods: An observational retrospective single-centre study was conducted on patients who were treated with dental implants in the department of oral and plastic maxillofacial surgery of the military hospital of Ulm University between 2008 and 2010. In all patients, computer-assisted 3D planning after wax-up of the prosthetic restoration and template-guided surgery with titanium implants were performed. Bone augmentation procedures were performed primarily if needed. Intraoperative and postoperative complications as well as technical and mechanical complications after prosthesis loading were evaluated. In a 5-year clinical and radiological follow-up, implant success and implant survival were assessed using descriptive statistics. A multivariable regression analysis evaluated the potential impact of augmentation procedures, wound healing complications, smoking, history of periodontitis, and preoperative API (approximal plaque index) and SBI (sulcus bleeding index) values on peri-implant mucositis, peri-implant bone resorption, peri-implantitis, as well as early and late implant failure. Results: In this study, 466 implants in 283 patients were considered for inclusion, and sufficient data were obtained for analysis from 368 (78.9%) implants in 229 (80.9%) patients. An overall implant survival rate of 98.1% (n=361/368) at the 5-year follow-up was revealed. According to the success criteria of the study, the 5-year success rate was 97.04% (n=263/271). An early implant failure of 1.07% (n=5/466) was recorded. 48.2% of the implants were affected by peri-implant mucositis (n=122/253), while peri-implant bone resorption was detected in 21.7% of the radiologically examined implants (n=59/271). Fifteen cases of peri-implantitis (5.5%) were detected. Peri-implant bone resorption increased significantly after bone augmentation procedures (p=0.028). Wound healing complications after implantation significantly increased the prevalence of late implant failure in the maxilla (p<0.001). Peri-implant bone resorption and peri-implantitis were significantly more prevalent in smokers (p=0.022/p=0.043). Implants in patients with API>20% presented significantly higher rates of peri-implant mucositis (p=0.042). Wound healing complications after augmentation, history of periodontitis, and SBI>20% had no significant impact on the study parameters. Conclusions: The study confirms the reliability of prosthetically guided implant surgery, showing a high implant survival and success rate in a 5-year follow-up. Intraoperative complications and technical or mechanical complications after prosthesis loading remain within acceptable clinical limits. The rate of peri-implant mucositis, peri-implant bone resorption, and peri-implantitis was within the current literature range. Optimizing periodontal health and reducing smoking would improve the outcome. Further studies need to clarify the clinical indications and investigate the long-term surgical outcome of this treatment concept.
[Relationship between occurrence of negative conversion and tuberculin reactivity in lung disease due to Mycobacterium intracellulare (author's transl)].

M. Tsukamura

1976-03-01

Abstract:
Influencing Factors Regarding the Severity of Peri-Implantitis and Peri-Implant Mucositis

Csilla Benedek,Bernadette Kerekes-Máthé,Liana Bereșescu,Imola Zsuzsa Buka,Zsuzsanna Bardocz-Veres,Ildikó Geréb,Krisztina Ildikó Mártha,Kinga Mária Jánosi

DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/diagnostics14141573

IF: 3.6

2024-07-20

Diagnostics

Abstract:The scientific literature is increasingly focused on peri-implant mucositis and peri-implantitis, which are biological outcomes of dental implant treatment. Background/Objectives: The present study aimed to evaluate the two most critical complications of dental implantation, peri-implant mucositis and peri-implantitis, through the prism of different influencing factors. Methods: We followed 40 patients, with a total number of 92 dental implants, divided into three age groups: under 35 years, between 35 and 55 years, and older than 55 years. Patients were also divided into groups according to the time since implant placement: 1–3 years, 4–7 years, and more than 7 years. The patients were examined, and periodontal pocket depth, peri-implant pocket depth, Löe–Silness gingival index, mucosal thickness, and keratinized mucosal width were recorded; bone resorption was measured on radiographs using a 2D image analysis method; and a questionnaire was also conducted. Results: Bone resorption was highest in the 35–55 age group (3.09 ± 0.04 mm) and for implants placed 4–7 years ago (3.39 ± 0.12 mm). Females had a mean bone resorption of 3.4 ± 0.15 mm and males of 2.45 ± 0.07 mm. Statistically, there was a significant difference only in the Löe–Silness index: the 35–55 age group had the highest values (p = 0.04). Conclusions: There were no statistically significant differences between the time since implant placement and the degree of bone resorption, nor between sexes. Peri-implant inflammation may occur at any age, regardless of the lifetime of the implants.

medicine, general & internal
Evaluation of Clinical Parameters in Implant Maintenance Phase for Prevention of Peri-implantitis

I. Das,A. Yaqoob,S. Deenadayalan,B. Kandasamy,Emmanuel P Samson,Pragya Pandey

DOI: https://doi.org/10.4103/jispcd.JISPCD_64_18

2018-07-01

Journal of International Society of Preventive and Community Dentistry

Abstract:Aims and Objectives: Peri-implant mucositis and peri-implantitis are one of the common biological complications affecting implant success. The present study aimed to evaluate various clinical parameters during implant maintenance phase. Materials and Methods: The study included patients undergoing implant maintenance phase for 1-year follow-up. The study consists of a total of forty individuals with age ranging from 35 to 65 years. They were further categorized into two subgroups on the basis of their history, i.e., Group 1: patients with no history of periodontitis before implant placement and Group 2: patients with a history of periodontitis before implant placement. Among the selected patients, a total of 98 implants were studied. All were individually evaluated for clinical parameters such as gingival index, pocket probing depth (PPD), and bleeding on probing (BOP). All the data obtained were tabulated and analyzed using statistical software SPSS version 18.0 for Windows (SPSS Inc., Chicago, USA). Quantitative analysis was done using t-test and Mann–Whitney U-test. Results: The mean age of the patients in Group 1 and Group 2 was 58.6 and 62.8 years, respectively, with not much gender difference. The mean plaque index for Group 1 was 0.17 ± 0.20, while for Group 2, it was 0.24 ± 0.14. The mean PPD and mean BOP for Group 1 came to be 2.60 ± 0.42 and 0.42 ± 0.15, respectively, whereas for Group 2, it was 4.08 ± 0.30 and 0.39 ± 0.48, respectively. Only PPD was found to be statistically significantly different between both the groups. Group 1 showed 2.0% peri-implantitis, whereas Group 2 showed 28% peri-implantitis. Conclusion: Due to increased prevalence of peri-implantitis cases with the increase in usage of implants, it becomes imperative to look up to the etiological factors and contributing factors so that the incidence of these can be minimized.

Medicine
Leibniz's logic

W. Lenzen

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/S1874-5857(04)80014-1

Abstract:
Patient and implant-related risk factors for implant failure of one-stage lateral sinus floor elevation: A 2- to 10-year retrospective study

Mengdie Fu,Yuer Ye,Rui Pu,Danji Zhu,Guoli Yang,Zhiwei Jiang

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/cid.13380

2024-09-01

Abstract:Objectives: This retrospective study aimed to evaluate the early and late implant failure rates of one-stage lateral sinus floor elevation (LSFE) and to identify the patient and implant-related risk factors associated with these failures. Materials and methods: All patients treated with one-stage LSFE from January 2014 to December 2021 were evaluated for inclusion. A total of 618 patients with 936 implants met the inclusion criteria. Clinical and radiographic information about patient and implants was collected. Univariate and multivariate Cox proportional hazards frailty regression models were performed to identify risk factors for early and late implant failure. Results: The cumulative implant survival rate was 95.62% (95% CI 93.90%-97.68%), with 16 early implant failures and 25 late implant failures. The Cox analysis indicated that ≤3 mm residual bone height (RBH) was associated with a higher early failure rate. For late implant failure, smoking habit, ≤3 mm RBH, and certain implant brand were independent risk factors. Narrow sinus ostium, long infundibulum, and flat thickening of Schneiderian membrane might be non-independent risk factors for late implant failure. No significance was found in other variables, including age, periodontitis history, implant characteristics (position, diameter, length, protrusion length, marginal bone loss), surgeon experience, healing time, opposing dentition, and prosthesis. Conclusions: One-stage LSFE is a predictable treatment for patients with atrophic maxilla. ≤3 mm RBH increased the risk of early implant failure, while smoking habit, ≤3 mm RBH, and certain implant brand were independent risk factors for late implant failure.
Influence of a single preoperative dose of antibiotics on the early implant failure rate. A randomized clinical trial

Hossein Kashani,Jack Hilon,Mahdi Hasan Rasoul,Bertil Friberg

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/cid.12724

Abstract:Background: The use of a preoperative single dose of antibiotics as routine in conjunction with implant surgery is controversial, in light of the unclear effect on early implant failure rate and risk for development of resistant bacterial strains. Purpose: This randomized clinical trial compared the early implant failure rates in two different patient cohorts: One group receiving a single dose of preoperative antibiotics (AB group) and one group receiving no antibiotics, prior to implant surgery (noAB group). Materials and methods: Patients were referred for treatment at four specialist clinics in the county council of West Sweden, Vastra Gotaland and randomly assigned into one of the two groups. A total of 447 patients received 963 implants were included in the study. Of these, 223 patients (535 implants) belonged to the AB-group and 224 patients (428 implants) to the noAB-group. Four commercial implant brands were utilized, albeit one system was only represented with four implants. The outcome was evaluated after 4 months using either a one-stage or two-stage procedure. The surgical procedures were performed by experienced implant surgeons and the surgical protocol for implant placement follows standard. Failure was defined as removal of an implant for any reason. The study outcomes were statistically analyzed to evaluate the differences between the two groups. Results: Twelve implants failed in 11 patients for the AB group, and 32 implants failed in 29 patients for the noAB group. Preoperative antibiotics, AB group, had significantly (P < 0.0011) lower implant failure 2.2% compared to 7.5% in the noAB group analyzed on implant level adjusted for dependence within patients, OR = 0.30, 95% confidence interval (0.14-0.62). Conclusion: Administration of a single dose of antibiotics in conjunction with implant placement surgery resulted in a statistically significant lower early implant failure rate compared to when no antibiotics were used.
Retrospective Clinical Analysis of Risk Factors Associated with Failed Short Implants.

Li Chen,Tao Yang,Guangwen Yang,Na Zhou,Heng Dong,Yongbin Mou

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/cid.12879

2019-01-01

Clinical Implant Dentistry and Related Research

Abstract:BACKGROUND:With advanced technology, short implants are more commonly used and have proven to have a relatively reliable curable efficacy. A consensus has not been reached regarding potential risk factors related to the loss of short implants.PURPOSE:This large-sample retrospective study concentrated not only on patient characteristics and medical procedures but also on the features of implants in order to uncover the risk factors associated with short implants.METHODS:Between 2014 and 2017, a total of 7001 implants were inserted at Nanjing Stomatological Hospital, Medical School of Nanjing University. Among the all, 1236 short implants were included after being evaluated according to the inclusion and exclusion criteria. In organizing the detailed information, seven variables including bone grafting procedure, age, gender, diameter of the implant, implant position, surface treatment, and definitive restorations were taken into consideration. The χ2 test, Kaplan-Meier test, logistic regression, and multifactorial Cox regression analysis were employed to explore the risk factors.RESULTS:The cumulative survival rate of short implants was 96.36%, slightly lower than that of the standard implants (98.16%, P < .001). Most of the short implants (84.44%) were lost at the early stage, mainly because of infection. Based on the results, male gender, implants treated by titanium anodizing and single-crown restoration increased the loss rate of short implants. Comparison of the short implants inserted into the maxillary and mandibular posterior area alone showed that the maxillary molar area was a risk factor for prognosis.CONCLUSIONS:Male gender, TA surface treatment, and the presence of a single crown were associated with an increasing rate of short implants loss. Examination of the implant location focused on the posterior area revealed the maxillary posterior area to be a risk factor.
A 10‐year Retrospective Clinical Study to Identify Risk Indicators for Peri‐Implant Bone Loss and Implant Failure

Simon Windael,Bruno Collaert,Stefanie De Buyser,Stijn Vervaeke,Hugo De Bruyn

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/clr.14375

2024-10-25

Clinical Oral Implants Research

Abstract:Aim To evaluate long‐term survival and success of dental implants and evaluate indicators affecting the long‐term outcome. Materials and Methods Implant survival, success and crestal bone loss (BL) over time were evaluated. For covariates at patient level, Kaplan–Meier estimates of implant survival were compared between groups with the log‐rank test. Observed mean bone loss (MBL) was plotted as a function of time. Cumulative frequencies of BL were plotted for different post‐op times. Uni‐ and multivariate analysis was performed. Simple linear mixed and multiple linear mixed models for BL at 1, 5 and 10 years were fitted. Results 407 patients (221 women, 186 men; mean age 64.86 years (range 28–92, SD 10.11)), with 1482 implants, responded. Absolute implant survival was 94.74%; MBL was 0.81 mm (SD 1.58, range 0.00–17.00) after an average follow‐up of 10.66 years (range 10–14, SD 0.87). Implant survival was influenced on implant level by smoking, implant width and early bone loss (EBL) > 0.5 mm; on patient level by a history of periodontitis. Indicators influencing MBL after the 1st year were abutment height, type of surgery and implant width, while after 5 and 10 years of function were abutment height, EBL > 0.5 mm and smoking. Conclusion Implant survival was significantly affected by a history of periodontitis on patient level and by smoking, implant width and EBL > 0.5 mm on implant level. Late bone loss was significantly affected by abutment height, EBL > 0.5 mm and smoking. Trial Registration: B670201524796

engineering, biomedical,dentistry, oral surgery & medicine
Immediate Loaded Fixed Complete Dentures Supported by Implants in Patients with a History of Periodontitis: A Retrospective Cohort Study of 2 to 7 Years

Bobo Cai,Zian Tong,Yinjie Qian,Weijun Zhu,Yifan Lu,Misi Si

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.prosdent.2022.08.006

IF: 4.148

2023-01-01

Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry

Abstract:STATEMENT OF PROBLEM:The outcome of implant-supported fixed complete dentures in edentulous patients with a history of periodontitis is unclear.PURPOSE:The purpose of this retrospective clinical study was to assess the clinical outcomes of immediate loaded fixed complete dentures in individuals with a history of periodontitis and to analyze risk factors related to implant failure.MATERIAL AND METHODS:A total of 642 implants (146 prostheses) in 119 patients were included. The follow-up period ranged from 2 to 7 years. Implant survival rates, marginal bone loss, mechanical complications, biologic complications, and patient satisfaction were evaluated. The Pearson chi-square test, independent samples t test, and multivariate generalized estimating equation were performed for statistical analysis (α=.05).RESULTS:Eleven implants in 9 patients failed, leading to overall survival rates of 98.3% at the implant level and 92.4% at the patient level. The mean ±standard deviation marginal bone loss was 0.62 ±0.86 mm, and marginal bone loss did not differ significantly between axial and tilted implants (P>.05). Mechanical complications were detected in 55 (37.7%) definitive prostheses; biologic complications were detected in 318 (49.5%) implants. Smokers had a significantly lower survival rate than nonsmokers (odds ratio: 6.880, P=.013). Bruxers had a significantly higher incidence of mechanical complications than nonbruxers (P<.001).CONCLUSIONS:The immediate loaded fixed complete denture supported by implants is a suitable treatment option for edentulous patients with a history of periodontitis, with high survival implant rates. Smoking is a risk factor for implant failure. Bruxism may increase the incidence of mechanical complications with implant-supported fixed complete dentures, and the overall biologic complication incidence is comparatively high.

Final steps to becoming a BSAVA standard practice.

A retrospective analysis of risk factors for early implant failure

A Retrospective Study of 30,959 Implants: Risk Factors Associated with Early and Late Implant Loss

Analysis of Implant Loss Risk Factors after Simultaneous Guided Bone Regeneration: A Retrospective Study of 5404 Dental Implants

Retrospective Study of Short Versus Standard Posterior Implants and Analysis of Implant Failure Risk Factors

The Risk Factors in Early Failure of Dental Implants: a Retrospective Study

Potential risk factors for early and late dental implant failure: a retrospective clinical study on 9080 implants

Analysis of risk factors related to early implant failure: A retrospective study

Long non-coding RNA CRNDE is a novel tumor promoter by modulating PI3K/AKT signal pathways in human gastric cancer.

High‐dose intrathecal diamorphine for analgesia after Caesarean section

Risk Factors for Early Dental Implant Failure

Prosthetically guided oral implant surgery. A retrospective cohort study evaluating the 5-year surgical outcome

[Relationship between occurrence of negative conversion and tuberculin reactivity in lung disease due to Mycobacterium intracellulare (author's transl)].

Influencing Factors Regarding the Severity of Peri-Implantitis and Peri-Implant Mucositis

Evaluation of Clinical Parameters in Implant Maintenance Phase for Prevention of Peri-implantitis

Leibniz's logic

Patient and implant-related risk factors for implant failure of one-stage lateral sinus floor elevation: A 2- to 10-year retrospective study

Influence of a single preoperative dose of antibiotics on the early implant failure rate. A randomized clinical trial

Retrospective Clinical Analysis of Risk Factors Associated with Failed Short Implants.

A 10‐year Retrospective Clinical Study to Identify Risk Indicators for Peri‐Implant Bone Loss and Implant Failure

Immediate Loaded Fixed Complete Dentures Supported by Implants in Patients with a History of Periodontitis: A Retrospective Cohort Study of 2 to 7 Years