Discussion : Retrospective analysis of 10,000 implants (1)
Discussion
The retrospective analysis presented here evaluates implants inserted in three different private practices with or without augmentation procedures. Treatments were performed according to the standard protocols applied in the private practices. More than 10,000 implants were inserted in various indications and were followed up to 20.2 years from the day of implant insertion. The overall implant survival rate was 95.5%. When only single-crown implants were evaluated, the absolute survival rate increased to 98.8%. Various reviews have reported about the implant survival similar to the results found here.
In our analysis, survival of the 10,158 implants analysed was slightly but significantly higher in augmented bone than in pristine bone (96.3 vs. 94.3%). This might result from an increased mineral density, as usually observed after augmentation, and the concomitant higher bone-to-implant contact. High number of implants analysed here allowed suited statistical analysis despite of patient- and implant-specific variations. According to the statistical results of survival curves, the hypothesis of no difference might be withdrawn in favour for augmented bone indicating a statistically significant positive effect of grafting on implant survival. However, small difference in absolute numbers should be carefully evaluated for clinical relevance. Previously, published studies regarding implant survival between augmented and non-augmented sites are inconclusive. In one retrospective analysis which included 12,737 implants in 4206 patients, 59.7% of the implants were inserted using bone augmentation or bone expanding procedures. The authors did not find a significant difference between the Kaplan-Meier cumulative survival rates among grafted and non-grafted sites. In a recent review which included 108 articles of all evidence levels, Jensen and Terheyden found a high level of evidence that survival rates of implants in augmented bone are very similar to the ones of implants in pristine bone. In another review, Aghaloo et al. reported similar or even better results for implants in augmented sites.
Serial posts:
- Retrospective analysis of 10,000 implants
- Background : Retrospective analysis of 10,000 implants
- Methods : Retrospective analysis of 10,000 implants (1)
- Methods : Retrospective analysis of 10,000 implants (2)
- Statistical evaluation : Retrospective analysis of 10,000 implants
- Results : Retrospective analysis of 10,000 implants (1)
- Results : Retrospective analysis of 10,000 implants (2)
- Discussion : Retrospective analysis of 10,000 implants (1)
- Discussion : Retrospective analysis of 10,000 implants (2)
- Discussion : Retrospective analysis of 10,000 implants (3)
- Discussion : Retrospective analysis of 10,000 implants (4)
- References : Retrospective analysis of 10,000 implants
- Table 1 Distribution of implants according to the period of observation
- Table 2 Implant loss in augmented and non-augmented sites up to 20.2 years after implant insertion
- Table 3 Explantations of implants inserted using different augmentation procedures up to 20.2 years after implantation
- Table 5 Implants lost and in function up to 20.2 years after implant insertion using different graft materials
- Figure 1. Kaplan-Meier survival curves for implants
- Figure 2. Kaplan-Meier implant survival curves for augmentation procedures
- Figure 3. Kaplan-Meier survival curves for membrane types
- Figure 4. Kaplan-Meier implant survival curves for bone and bone substitutes