Abstract
Objectives: There is a need of more studies on whether low primary implant stability would negatively influence the success of implant therapy. Therefore, this retrospective study analyses outcomes of implants placed with low primary stability and factors that may be related to implant failures. Material and methods: This retrospective study included 156 patients, restored with 169 implants that presented manual rotation within an observed follow-up time of a minimum of 34 days and a maximum of 9.28 years. Descriptive statistics, survival analyses (life tables and Kaplan–Meier estimates) and radiographic assessment based on marginal bone level measurements were performed. This original study was adherent to STROBE guidelines. Results: Seven implants failed in seven patients, rendering cumulative survival rates of 94.74% (95% CI: 89.11–97.50) and 94.33% (95% CI: 88.30–97.30) at implant and patient levels, respectively. Kaplan–Meier estimates showed implant loss was found only in advanced surgery group (7 implant loss in 82 implants) when compared with simple surgery group (no implant loss in 87 implants; p = 0.005). Conclusions: Within the limitations of this retrospective study, implant placement with low primary stability might not negatively affect either the survival rates or marginal bone level changes of implants provided that a protected and unloaded healing is guaranteed.
| Original language | English |
|---|---|
| Pages (from-to) | 861-871 |
| Number of pages | 11 |
| Journal | Clinical Oral Implants Research |
| Volume | 30 |
| Issue number | 9 |
| DOIs | |
| Publication status | Published - 2019 Sep 1 |
Fingerprint
All Science Journal Classification (ASJC) codes
- Oral Surgery
Cite this
}
A retrospective case series evaluating the outcome of implants with low primary stability. / Lee, Kwan Joo; Cha, Jae Kook; Sanz-Martin, Ignacio; Sanz, Mariano; Jung, Ui-Won.
In: Clinical Oral Implants Research, Vol. 30, No. 9, 01.09.2019, p. 861-871.Research output: Contribution to journal › Article
TY - JOUR
T1 - A retrospective case series evaluating the outcome of implants with low primary stability
AU - Lee, Kwan Joo
AU - Cha, Jae Kook
AU - Sanz-Martin, Ignacio
AU - Sanz, Mariano
AU - Jung, Ui-Won
PY - 2019/9/1
Y1 - 2019/9/1
N2 - Objectives: There is a need of more studies on whether low primary implant stability would negatively influence the success of implant therapy. Therefore, this retrospective study analyses outcomes of implants placed with low primary stability and factors that may be related to implant failures. Material and methods: This retrospective study included 156 patients, restored with 169 implants that presented manual rotation within an observed follow-up time of a minimum of 34 days and a maximum of 9.28 years. Descriptive statistics, survival analyses (life tables and Kaplan–Meier estimates) and radiographic assessment based on marginal bone level measurements were performed. This original study was adherent to STROBE guidelines. Results: Seven implants failed in seven patients, rendering cumulative survival rates of 94.74% (95% CI: 89.11–97.50) and 94.33% (95% CI: 88.30–97.30) at implant and patient levels, respectively. Kaplan–Meier estimates showed implant loss was found only in advanced surgery group (7 implant loss in 82 implants) when compared with simple surgery group (no implant loss in 87 implants; p = 0.005). Conclusions: Within the limitations of this retrospective study, implant placement with low primary stability might not negatively affect either the survival rates or marginal bone level changes of implants provided that a protected and unloaded healing is guaranteed.
AB - Objectives: There is a need of more studies on whether low primary implant stability would negatively influence the success of implant therapy. Therefore, this retrospective study analyses outcomes of implants placed with low primary stability and factors that may be related to implant failures. Material and methods: This retrospective study included 156 patients, restored with 169 implants that presented manual rotation within an observed follow-up time of a minimum of 34 days and a maximum of 9.28 years. Descriptive statistics, survival analyses (life tables and Kaplan–Meier estimates) and radiographic assessment based on marginal bone level measurements were performed. This original study was adherent to STROBE guidelines. Results: Seven implants failed in seven patients, rendering cumulative survival rates of 94.74% (95% CI: 89.11–97.50) and 94.33% (95% CI: 88.30–97.30) at implant and patient levels, respectively. Kaplan–Meier estimates showed implant loss was found only in advanced surgery group (7 implant loss in 82 implants) when compared with simple surgery group (no implant loss in 87 implants; p = 0.005). Conclusions: Within the limitations of this retrospective study, implant placement with low primary stability might not negatively affect either the survival rates or marginal bone level changes of implants provided that a protected and unloaded healing is guaranteed.
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85068070887&partnerID=8YFLogxK
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85068070887&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1111/clr.13491
DO - 10.1111/clr.13491
M3 - Article
VL - 30
SP - 861
EP - 871
JO - Clinical Oral Implants Research
JF - Clinical Oral Implants Research
SN - 0905-7161
IS - 9
ER -