Factors Influencing Resonance Frequency Analysis (RFA) Measurements and 5-Year Survival of Neoss Dental Implants.
Journal
International journal of dentistry
ISSN: 1687-8728
Titre abrégé: Int J Dent
Pays: Egypt
ID NLM: 101524183
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
2019
2019
Historique:
received:
19
11
2018
accepted:
11
02
2019
entrez:
9
5
2019
pubmed:
9
5
2019
medline:
9
5
2019
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Diagnostic instruments based on resonance frequency analysis (RFA) can be utilised to assess dental implant stability during treatment and follow-up. The aim of the present study was to investigate the influence of patient- and implant-related factors on implant stability and the 5-year implant survival. In addition, the influence of stability (ISQ value) at placement and abutment connection on implant survival was evaluated. RFA measurements from a total of 334 consecutive patients with 745 dental implants (Neoss Ltd., Harrogate, UK) were retrospectively analysed after at least 5 years in function. Statistics were used to evaluate the influence of the different variables on implant stability and implant survival. Odds ratio calculations were performed to compare the risk for implant failure using 60, 65, 70, and 75 ISQ as threshold levels at placement and loading. A total of 20 implant failures in 14 patients were noted during the 5 years of follow-up, giving an overall cumulative survival rate (CSR) of 97.3% at the implant level and 95.8% at the patient level. Gender, jaw, position, bone quality, and implant diameter had an influence on implant stability at placement. Jaw, bone quality, and implant diameter had an influence on stability after 3-4 months of healing. More failures were observed in full than in partial rehabilitations. Age, gender, jaw, position, bone quantity, bone quality, implant diameter, and implant length had no influence on implant survival. Implants with ISQ values below the threshold levels showed lower survival rates compared to implants with values above these levels. The present study showed a significantly higher risk for implant failure, showing an ISQ value below 70 and 75 at placement or after 3-4 months of healing. The results indicate that RFA measurements can be used to identify implants with increased risk for failure.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
Diagnostic instruments based on resonance frequency analysis (RFA) can be utilised to assess dental implant stability during treatment and follow-up.
AIM
OBJECTIVE
The aim of the present study was to investigate the influence of patient- and implant-related factors on implant stability and the 5-year implant survival. In addition, the influence of stability (ISQ value) at placement and abutment connection on implant survival was evaluated.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
METHODS
RFA measurements from a total of 334 consecutive patients with 745 dental implants (Neoss Ltd., Harrogate, UK) were retrospectively analysed after at least 5 years in function. Statistics were used to evaluate the influence of the different variables on implant stability and implant survival. Odds ratio calculations were performed to compare the risk for implant failure using 60, 65, 70, and 75 ISQ as threshold levels at placement and loading.
RESULTS
RESULTS
A total of 20 implant failures in 14 patients were noted during the 5 years of follow-up, giving an overall cumulative survival rate (CSR) of 97.3% at the implant level and 95.8% at the patient level. Gender, jaw, position, bone quality, and implant diameter had an influence on implant stability at placement. Jaw, bone quality, and implant diameter had an influence on stability after 3-4 months of healing. More failures were observed in full than in partial rehabilitations. Age, gender, jaw, position, bone quantity, bone quality, implant diameter, and implant length had no influence on implant survival. Implants with ISQ values below the threshold levels showed lower survival rates compared to implants with values above these levels.
CONCLUSIONS
CONCLUSIONS
The present study showed a significantly higher risk for implant failure, showing an ISQ value below 70 and 75 at placement or after 3-4 months of healing. The results indicate that RFA measurements can be used to identify implants with increased risk for failure.
Identifiants
pubmed: 31065267
doi: 10.1155/2019/3209872
pmc: PMC6466959
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Pagination
3209872Références
Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 1999 Aug;28(4):297-303
pubmed: 10416900
Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 1999 Sep-Oct;14(5):639-45
pubmed: 10531735
Clin Implant Dent Relat Res. 2002;4(3):128-32
pubmed: 12516644
Clin Oral Implants Res. 2003 Oct;14(5):601-9
pubmed: 12969364
Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2003 Sep-Oct;18(5):641-51
pubmed: 14579951
Clin Oral Implants Res. 2004 Oct;15(5):520-8
pubmed: 15355393
Clin Oral Implants Res. 2004 Oct;15(5):529-39
pubmed: 15355394
Clin Oral Implants Res. 2005 Aug;16(4):425-31
pubmed: 16117766
Bone. 2005 Dec;37(6):776-80
pubmed: 16154396
Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2005 Sep-Oct;20(5):747-52
pubmed: 16274149
Int J Prosthodont. 2006 Jan-Feb;19(1):77-83; discussion 84
pubmed: 16479765
Int J Periodontics Restorative Dent. 2006 Jun;26(3):249-63
pubmed: 16836167
J Oral Rehabil. 2006 Oct;33(10):754-9
pubmed: 16938104
J Oral Rehabil. 2006 Dec;33(12):881-8
pubmed: 17168930
Clin Oral Implants Res. 2007 Jun;18(3):275-80
pubmed: 17355357
Clin Implant Dent Relat Res. 2007 Mar;9(1):46-59
pubmed: 17362496
Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 1991 Summer;6(2):142-6
pubmed: 1809668
Periodontol 2000. 2008;47:51-66
pubmed: 18412573
BMC Oral Health. 2008 Nov 24;8:32
pubmed: 19025637
Eur J Oral Sci. 2008 Dec;116(6):497-506
pubmed: 19049518
Clin Implant Dent Relat Res. 2011 Mar;13(1):19-28
pubmed: 19681932
Clin Oral Implants Res. 2009 Dec;20(12):1360-6
pubmed: 19793319
Clin Oral Implants Res. 2010 Mar;21(3):255-61
pubmed: 19958375
J Periodontol. 1991 Jan;62(1):2-4
pubmed: 2002427
Clin Implant Dent Relat Res. 2012 Aug;14(4):480-90
pubmed: 20491824
Otol Neurotol. 2010 Jul;31(5):840-5
pubmed: 20502376
Med Oral Patol Oral Cir Bucal. 2011 Aug 01;16(5):e664-9
pubmed: 20711122
Int J Prosthodont. 2012 Jul-Aug;25(4):326-39
pubmed: 22720282
Clin Oral Implants Res. 2014 Jan;25(1):29-35
pubmed: 23113597
J Oral Rehabil. 2013 Mar;40(3):221-7
pubmed: 23278128
Clin Implant Dent Relat Res. 2015 Oct;17(5):844-53
pubmed: 24373386
J Dent Res. 2015 Mar;94(3 Suppl):44S-51S
pubmed: 25503901
Biomed Res Int. 2016;2016:6285620
pubmed: 27478833
J Funct Biomater. 2018 Jan 13;9(1):null
pubmed: 29342830
Clin Implant Dent Relat Res. 2018 Oct;20(5):890-901
pubmed: 30051949
Clin Oral Implants Res. 1995 Dec;6(4):213-9
pubmed: 8603112
Eur J Oral Sci. 1998 Feb;106(1):527-51
pubmed: 9527353
Clin Oral Implants Res. 1997 Jun;8(3):234-43
pubmed: 9586468