4.6 Article

5-year clinical experience with BTI® dental implants:: risk factors for implant failure

Journal

JOURNAL OF CLINICAL PERIODONTOLOGY
Volume 35, Issue 8, Pages 724-732

Publisher

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/j.1600-051X.2008.01248.x

Keywords

cox regression analysis; dental implants; follow-up analysis; PRGF; risk factors; survival analysis

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Objectives: The aims of this study were to identify with appropriate statistical tests the risk factors associated with implant failure and to evaluate the long-term survival of dental implants using implant loss as an outcome variable and performing an implant-, surgery- and patient-based analysis of failures. Material and Methods: A retrospective cohort study design was used. One thousand sixty patients received 5787 BTI(R) implants during the years of 2001-2005 in Vitoria, Spain. The potential influence of demographic items, clinical items, surgery-dependent items and prosthetic variables on implant survival was studied. Implant survival was analysed using a life-table analysis. Cox proportional hazards regression was used to identify risk factors related to implant failure. Results: Smoking habits, implant position, implant staging (two-stage implants) and the implementation of special techniques were statistically correlated with lower implant survival rates. Two risk factors associated with implant failure were detected in this study: implant staging (two-stage implants) and the use of special techniques. Additionally, the overall survival rates of BTI(R) implants were 99.2%, 96.4% and 96% for the implant-, surgery- and patient-based analysis, respectively. Totally, 28 out from 5787 implants (0.48%) were lost during the observation period. Most of the patients with implant failure (69.6%) presented chronic or aggressive periodontitis. Conclusions: Implant staging and the use of special techniques are risk factors for implant failure.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available