Background: Retrospective cohort study of rough-surface titanium implants with at least 25 years’ function
Background
Dental implant treatment based on the concept of osseointegration [1] is now a widely accepted restorative treatment for fully and partially edentulous patients. In the earliest days of the use of osseointegrated implants, two different topographies were applied on the implant surfaces: a machined minimally rough titanium surface such as the Brånemark system and a rough microporous titanium plasma-sprayed surface such as the ITI system [2]. In clinical studies, the long-term (i.e., up to 20 years) survival rate of Brånemark-system implants was in the range of 80–99% [3,4,5] and that with ITI-system implants was 88–96% [6, 7].
Despite the high survival rates, implant-supported restorations are still subject to biological and mechanical complications. The focus in dental implant treatments has shifted from implant survival to (1) implant success, (2) peri-implant infection, and (3) long-term outcomes of prostheses. Since the increasing human life expectancy and most of the patients who undergo implant treatment are middle-aged (approx. 40–60 years old) [8, 9], the determination of these longitudinal clinical outcomes over decades will contribute to the evaluation of treatment alternatives.
The aim of this retrospective study was not only to evaluate the long-term outcomes of solid-screw implants wit
Serial posts:
- Retrospective cohort study of rough-surface titanium implants with at least 25 years’ function
- Background: Retrospective cohort study of rough-surface titanium implants with at least 25 years’ function
- Methods: Retrospective cohort study of rough-surface titanium implants with at least 25 years’ function
- Results: Retrospective cohort study of rough-surface titanium implants (1)
- Results: Retrospective cohort study of rough-surface titanium implants (2)
- Conclusions: Retrospective cohort study of rough-surface titanium implants
- References: Retrospective cohort study of rough-surface titanium implants
- Table 1 Age and gender distributions (n = 92)
- Table 2 Distribution of implants in situ (n = 223)
- Table 3 Distribution of implants by diameter and location (n = 223)
- Table 4 Distribution of implants by length and location (n = 223)
- Table 5 Cox regression analyses for implant survival
- Table 6 Cox regression analyses for cumulative incidence of peri-implantitis
- Table 7 Cox regression analyses for cumulative survival rate of complication-free prostheses