4.5 Article

Risk factors associated with early implant failure: A 5-year retrospective clinical study

期刊

JOURNAL OF PROSTHETIC DENTISTRY
卷 115, 期 2, 页码 150-155

出版社

MOSBY-ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.prosdent.2015.07.020

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Statement of problem. The replacement of lost teeth with dental implants is a widespread treatment whose associated problems are also frequently encountered. Nevertheless, the factors associated with early implant failure have not been well documented. Further analyses of the factors influencing osseointegration establishment are required to maximize the predictability of the procedure and minimize implant failures. Purpose. The purpose of this retrospective clinical study was to explore the association between possible risk factors and early implant failure. Material and methods. This retrospective clinical study evaluated 142 participants who received 276 external connection BTI implants between 2007 and 2011. Participant variables (age, sex, systemic disease, tobacco use, alcohol consumption, bruxism, and degree of periodontal disease), implant variables (type of edentulism, localization, area, diameter, length, and bone quality), intervention variables (expansion mechanisms, sinus augmentation techniques, bone regeneration, and implant insertion), and postoperative variables (presence of pain/inflammation at 1 week postsurgery) were studied. A multilevel logistic regression model (mixed effects-type model) was used to determine the influence of variables on early implant failure. Results. Early implant failure was significantly associated with the male sex (P=.001), severe periodontal disease (P=.005), short implants (P=.001), expansion technique (P=.002), and postoperative pain/inflammation at 1 week postsurgery (P<.001). Conclusions. Early dental implant failure is more frequent in men and in individuals with severe periodontal disease, short implants, pain/inflammation at 1 week postsurgery, or bone expansion treatment.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据