The long-term evaluation of the prognosis of implants with acid-etched surfaces sandblasted with alumina: a retrospective clinical study.
Dental implants
Osseointegration
Osstem implants
SA surface implants
SLA implants
Journal
Maxillofacial plastic and reconstructive surgery
ISSN: 2288-8101
Titre abrégé: Maxillofac Plast Reconstr Surg
Pays: England
ID NLM: 101633100
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
Dec 2020
Dec 2020
Historique:
received:
23
02
2020
accepted:
24
03
2020
entrez:
17
4
2020
pubmed:
17
4
2020
medline:
17
4
2020
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
The aim of this study was to evaluate the long-term clinical stability of implants with acid-etched surfaces sandblasted with alumina using retrospective analyses of the survival rate, success rate, primary and secondary stability, complications, and marginal bone loss of the implants. Patients who had implants placed (TS III SA, SS II SA, SS III SA, and U III SA) with SA surfaces from Osstem (Osstem Implant Co., Busan, Korea) at the Seoul National University Bundang Hospital, from January 2008 to December 2010 were selected for the study. Patients' medical records and radiographs (panorama, periapical view) were retrospectively analyzed to investigate sex, age, location of implantation, diameter, and length of the implants, initial and secondary stability, presence of bone grafting, types of bone grafting and membranes, early and delayed complications, marginal bone loss, and implant survival rate. Ninety-six implants were placed in 45 patients. Five implants were removed during the follow-up period for a total survival rate of 94.8%. There were 14 cases of complications, including 6 cases of early complications and 8 cases of delayed complications. All five implants that failed to survive were included in the early complications. The survival of implants was significantly associated with the occurrence of complications and the absorption of bone greater than 1 mm within 1 year after prosthetic completion. In addition, the absorption of bone greater than 1 mm within 1 year after prosthetic completion was significantly associated with the occurrence of complications, primary stability, and implant placement method. Five cases that failed to survive were all included in the early complications criteria such as infection, failure of initial osseointegration, and early exposure of the fixture. Of the 96 cases, 5 implants failed resulting in a 94.8% survival rate. The failed implants were all cases of early complications such as infection, failure of initial osseointegration, and early exposure of the fixtures. Peri-implantitis was mostly addressed through conservative and/or surgical treatment and resulted in very low prosthetic complications. Therefore, if preventive measures are taken to minimize initial complications, the results can be very stable.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
The aim of this study was to evaluate the long-term clinical stability of implants with acid-etched surfaces sandblasted with alumina using retrospective analyses of the survival rate, success rate, primary and secondary stability, complications, and marginal bone loss of the implants.
METHODS
METHODS
Patients who had implants placed (TS III SA, SS II SA, SS III SA, and U III SA) with SA surfaces from Osstem (Osstem Implant Co., Busan, Korea) at the Seoul National University Bundang Hospital, from January 2008 to December 2010 were selected for the study. Patients' medical records and radiographs (panorama, periapical view) were retrospectively analyzed to investigate sex, age, location of implantation, diameter, and length of the implants, initial and secondary stability, presence of bone grafting, types of bone grafting and membranes, early and delayed complications, marginal bone loss, and implant survival rate.
RESULTS
RESULTS
Ninety-six implants were placed in 45 patients. Five implants were removed during the follow-up period for a total survival rate of 94.8%. There were 14 cases of complications, including 6 cases of early complications and 8 cases of delayed complications. All five implants that failed to survive were included in the early complications. The survival of implants was significantly associated with the occurrence of complications and the absorption of bone greater than 1 mm within 1 year after prosthetic completion. In addition, the absorption of bone greater than 1 mm within 1 year after prosthetic completion was significantly associated with the occurrence of complications, primary stability, and implant placement method. Five cases that failed to survive were all included in the early complications criteria such as infection, failure of initial osseointegration, and early exposure of the fixture.
CONCLUSIONS
CONCLUSIONS
Of the 96 cases, 5 implants failed resulting in a 94.8% survival rate. The failed implants were all cases of early complications such as infection, failure of initial osseointegration, and early exposure of the fixtures. Peri-implantitis was mostly addressed through conservative and/or surgical treatment and resulted in very low prosthetic complications. Therefore, if preventive measures are taken to minimize initial complications, the results can be very stable.
Identifiants
pubmed: 32296662
doi: 10.1186/s40902-020-00255-6
pii: 255
pmc: PMC7142172
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Pagination
10Informations de copyright
© The Author(s) 2020.
Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts
Competing interestsNo potential conflict of interest relevant to this article was reported.
Références
J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 1996 Nov;54(11):1334-6
pubmed: 8941185
Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 1987 Spring;2(2):77-84
pubmed: 3325415
J Adv Prosthodont. 2016 Oct;8(5):396-403
pubmed: 27826390
Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 1999 Nov-Dec;14(6):798-810
pubmed: 10612916
Clin Oral Implants Res. 1997 Oct;8(5):352-66
pubmed: 9612140
J Periodontol. 2002 Mar;73(3):322-33
pubmed: 11922263
Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2019 Apr 1;34(4):936–946
pubmed: 30934037
Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2004;19 Suppl:150-4
pubmed: 15635955
Eur J Oral Sci. 1998 Jun;106(3):721-64
pubmed: 9672097
Clin Oral Implants Res. 1992 Mar;3(1):9-16
pubmed: 1420727
Oral Microbiol Immunol. 1987 Dec;2(4):145-51
pubmed: 3507627
Clin Oral Implants Res. 2010 Mar;21(3):255-61
pubmed: 19958375
Clin Implant Dent Relat Res. 2012 Dec;14(6):839-51
pubmed: 22897683
Clin Implant Dent Relat Res. 2000;2(1):18-32
pubmed: 11359271
Interv Med Appl Sci. 2013 Dec;5(4):162-7
pubmed: 24381734
Clin Oral Implants Res. 1993 Mar;4(1):12-22
pubmed: 8329532
Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 1997 Jul-Aug;12(4):486-94
pubmed: 9274077
Acta Orthop Scand. 1981;52(2):155-70
pubmed: 7246093
J Dent (Shiraz). 2017 Dec;18(4):272-276
pubmed: 29201970
J Korean Assoc Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2015 Dec;41(6):317-21
pubmed: 26734558
J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2012 Feb;70(2):307-13
pubmed: 22169672
Clin Oral Implants Res. 1993 Mar;4(1):2-11
pubmed: 8329533