Discussion and conclusions: Implant success and survival rates (1)
Discussion and conclusions
This large, multicenter study provides real-life long-term data on 285 implants placed in 196 patients. The results show that the placement of CAMLOG SCREW-LINE implants with platform-matching or platform-switching abutments results in high survival and success in the long term. The overall success rate for implants was 97.1% at 5-year post-loading, and 97.4% and 96.2% for implants with platform-switching and platform-matching abutments, respectively, according to Albrektsson et al. [30]; the overall survival rate was 98.6%. For comparability to other studies, the success rates were assessed post hoc according to Buser et al. [29], revealing a 5-year overall success rate of 98.0%, and 100% and 97.4% for implants with platform-matching and platform-switching abutments, respectively.
These results compare positively with the results achieved for the CAMLOG SCREW-LINE implants in an RCT [23]. Here, the 3-year success rates—according to Buser et al. [29]—were 97.3% for platform-switching and 97.1% for platform-matching implants. In contrast, the present study achieved better 3-year success rates—according to Buser et al. [29]—for both platform-matching (100%) and platform-switching (99.4%) implants. Other private practice studies achieved similar results to our study, with success rates at 3 years of 93.5% for SLActive implants [4] and 99.12% and 97.58% at 3 and 5 years, respectively, for comparable SLA surface implants [5]. These studies [4, 5] also applied the success criteria, according to Buser et al. [29], namely absence of pain, infection, neuropathies or paresthesia, peri-implant infection with suppuration, mobility, and continuous radiolucency around the implant. Slight differences in success rates are seen with the two criteria [29, 30]. In our study, the success rates are lower at 5-year follow-up, according to Albrektsson et al., because bone level changes were measured to fulfill the first criterion (< 0.2 mm bone loss annually after the first year of loading).
Serial posts:
- Implant success and survival rates in daily dental practice
- Background: Implant success and survival rates (1)
- Background: Implant success and survival rates (2)
- Methods: Implant success and survival rates (1)
- Methods: Implant success and survival rates (2)
- Methods: Implant success and survival rates (3)
- Methods: Implant success and survival rates (4)
- Results: Implant success and survival rates (1)
- Results: Implant success and survival rates (2)
- Results: Implant success and survival rates (3)
- Discussion and conclusions: Implant success and survival rates (1)
- Discussion and conclusions: Implant success and survival rates (2)
- Discussion and conclusions: Implant success and survival rates (3)
- Discussion and conclusions: Implant success and survival rates (4)
- Discussion and conclusions: Implant success and survival rates (5)
- Discussion and conclusions: Implant success and survival rates (6)
- Abbreviations & References: Implant success and survival rates
- Table 1 Table of study centers
- Table 2 Patient demographics
- Table 3 Patient demographics with respect to implants
- Table 4 Life table analysis showing the cumulative success rate according to Albrektsson et al. and Buser et al.
- Figure 1. Study flow diagram
- Figure 2. Clinical parameters and soft tissue parameters
- Figure 3. Bone level changes from loading to 5-year follow up
- Figure 4. Patient satisfaction throughout the study