Discussion : Retrospective cohort study of a tapered implant with high primary stability in patients with local and systemic risk factors—7-year data [3]
The survival rate for 93 implants in 45 patients with no RFs was 94.8%. Moraschini et al. [44] have exhibited in their systematic review, based on 7711 implants, similar SRs with cumulative mean values of 94.6%. Moreover, in the subcohort of our study, by 44 of the above 93, implants were performed immediate procedures (25 immediate implantations, 35 immediate restorations, 16 both of them) so the survival rate could be also correlated with studies tasking with immediate procedures as well [45,46,47].
Very encouraging results came out by a secondary implant placement in areas of previous removed implants. Only one implant was lost out of a total of 31, which translates to a survival rate of 96.8%. According to studies by Grossmann and Levin [12] and Greenstein and Cavallaro [48], survival rates ranged between 50 and 100%.
The timing of implant placement and prosthetic restoration showed no statistically significant influence in our study. A meta-analysis of Hartog et al. [41] showed a survival rate of 95.5% and no difference between immediate, immediate-delayed, and delayed implant placement in the esthetic zone. Schropp et al. [49] used CBCT technology to test the remaining vestibular bone in conventional implant placements and immediate procedures and came to no statistically significant differences regarding bone preservation. Esposito et al. [46] demonstrated an increased risk of implant failure in patients after immediate implant placement (9%) when compared to delayed implant placement (2%). In our study, we found no significant difference between delayed implant placement (n = 153, 91.9%) and immediate implant placement (n = 54, 90%) (p = 0.603). Finally, Rocci et al. [47] presented the results of a study looking at a 9-year follow-up of Brånemark implants with a survival rate of immediately loaded implants of 92.2% that was very similar to the results of this study.
We found no difference of survival rate between implants with and without augmentation procedures. The relative lower implant survival rate of implants with augmentation procedures (n = 113, 88.1%) compared to those without (n = 94, 95.7%) can be explained from the fact that the sites needed augmentation showed a significant bone loss that maybe cannot be compensated from the augmentation procedure.
Serial posts:
- Abstract : Retrospective cohort study of a tapered implant with high primary stability in patients with local and systemic risk factors—7-year data
- Introduction : Retrospective cohort study of a tapered implant with high primary stability in patients with local and systemic risk factors—7-year data [1]
- Introduction : Retrospective cohort study of a tapered implant with high primary stability in patients with local and systemic risk factors—7-year data [2]
- Material and methods : Retrospective cohort study of a tapered implant with high primary stability in patients with local and systemic risk factors—7-year data [1]
- Material and methods : Retrospective cohort study of a tapered implant with high primary stability in patients with local and systemic risk factors—7-year data [2]
- Material and methods : Retrospective cohort study of a tapered implant with high primary stability in patients with local and systemic risk factors—7-year data [3]
- Material and methods : Retrospective cohort study of a tapered implant with high primary stability in patients with local and systemic risk factors—7-year data [4]
- Results : Retrospective cohort study of a tapered implant with high primary stability in patients with local and systemic risk factors—7-year data [1]
- Results : Retrospective cohort study of a tapered implant with high primary stability in patients with local and systemic risk factors—7-year data [2]
- Discussion : Retrospective cohort study of a tapered implant with high primary stability in patients with local and systemic risk factors—7-year data [1]
- Discussion : Retrospective cohort study of a tapered implant with high primary stability in patients with local and systemic risk factors—7-year data [2]
- Discussion : Retrospective cohort study of a tapered implant with high primary stability in patients with local and systemic risk factors—7-year data [3]
- Discussion : Retrospective cohort study of a tapered implant with high primary stability in patients with local and systemic risk factors—7-year data [4]
- Conclusions : Retrospective cohort study of a tapered implant with high primary stability in patients with local and systemic risk factors—7-year data
- References : Retrospective cohort study of a tapered implant with high primary stability in patients with local and systemic risk factors—7-year data [1]
- References : Retrospective cohort study of a tapered implant with high primary stability in patients with local and systemic risk factors—7-year data [2]
- References : Retrospective cohort study of a tapered implant with high primary stability in patients with local and systemic risk factors—7-year data [3]
- References : Retrospective cohort study of a tapered implant with high primary stability in patients with local and systemic risk factors—7-year data [4]
- References : Retrospective cohort study of a tapered implant with high primary stability in patients with local and systemic risk factors—7-year data [5]
- Acknowledgements : Retrospective cohort study of a tapered implant with high primary stability in patients with local and systemic risk factors—7-year data
- Author information : Retrospective cohort study of a tapered implant with high primary stability in patients with local and systemic risk factors—7-year data
- Ethics declarations : Retrospective cohort study of a tapered implant with high primary stability in patients with local and systemic risk factors—7-year data
- Rights and permissions : Retrospective cohort study of a tapered implant with high primary stability in patients with local and systemic risk factors—7-year data
- About this article : Retrospective cohort study of a tapered implant with high primary stability in patients with local and systemic risk factors—7-year data
- Table 1 Distribution of patients with local and systemic risk factors (Of: Retrospective cohort study of a tapered implant)
- Table 2 Clinical parameters and reason for implant failures of 15 implants in 12 patients (Of: Retrospective cohort study of a tapered implant)
- Fig. 1. On Kaplan-Meier survival estimates, the cumulative survival rate was 91.5% : Retrospective cohort study of a tapered implant
- Fig. 2. The cumulative survival rates for the different RF groups revealing a significant difference for patients without any and patients with local and systemic RFs (log rank, p = 0.006) : Retrospective cohort study of a tapered implant
- Abstract : Effectiveness and compliance of an oscillating-rotating toothbrush in patients with dental implants: a randomized clinical trial
- Background : Effectiveness and compliance of an oscillating-rotating toothbrush in patients with dental implants: a randomized clinical trial
- Methods : Effectiveness and compliance of an oscillating-rotating toothbrush in patients with dental implants: a randomized clinical trial [1]
- Methods : Effectiveness and compliance of an oscillating-rotating toothbrush in patients with dental implants: a randomized clinical trial [2]
- Results : Effectiveness and compliance of an oscillating-rotating toothbrush in patients with dental implants: a randomized clinical trial [1]
- Results : Effectiveness and compliance of an oscillating-rotating toothbrush in patients with dental implants: a randomized clinical trial [2]
- Discussion : Effectiveness and compliance of an oscillating-rotating toothbrush in patients with dental implants: a randomized clinical trial [1]
- Discussion : Effectiveness and compliance of an oscillating-rotating toothbrush in patients with dental implants: a randomized clinical trial [2]
- Conclusion : Effectiveness and compliance of an oscillating-rotating toothbrush in patients with dental implants: a randomized clinical trial
- Abbreviations : Effectiveness and compliance of an oscillating-rotating toothbrush in patients with dental implants: a randomized clinical trial
- References : Effectiveness and compliance of an oscillating-rotating toothbrush in patients with dental implants: a randomized clinical trial [1]
- References : Effectiveness and compliance of an oscillating-rotating toothbrush in patients with dental implants: a randomized clinical trial [2]
- References : Effectiveness and compliance of an oscillating-rotating toothbrush in patients with dental implants: a randomized clinical trial [3]
- References : Effectiveness and compliance of an oscillating-rotating toothbrush in patients with dental implants: a randomized clinical trial [4]
- Acknowledgements : Effectiveness and compliance of an oscillating-rotating toothbrush in patients with dental implants: a randomized clinical trial
- Author information : Effectiveness and compliance of an oscillating-rotating toothbrush in patients with dental implants: a randomized clinical trial
- Ethics declarations : Effectiveness and compliance of an oscillating-rotating toothbrush in patients with dental implants: a randomized clinical trial
- Rights and permissions : Effectiveness and compliance of an oscillating-rotating toothbrush in patients with dental implants: a randomized clinical trial
- About this article : Effectiveness and compliance of an oscillating-rotating toothbrush in patients with dental implants: a randomized clinical trial
- Table 1 BoP, PI, and PPD mean values at baseline, 1 month, and 3 months (Of: Effectiveness and compliance of an oscillating-rotating toothbrush in patients with dental implant)
- Fig. 1. Electric toothbrush heads: on the left is the one designed for natural teeth, and on the right is the one designed for dental implants : Effectiveness and compliance of an oscillating-rotating toothbrush in patients with dental implant
- Fig. 2. Patients’ population flow chart : Effectiveness and compliance of an oscillating-rotating toothbrush in patients with dental implant
- Fig. 3. PI on dental implants. Test values keep reducing after 1 month while control maintains the same level : Effectiveness and compliance of an oscillating-rotating toothbrush in patients with dental implant
- Fig. 4. PI on natural teeth. After 1 month, the test group showed mild reduction while control a light improvement : Effectiveness and compliance of an oscillating-rotating toothbrush in patients with dental implant
- Fig. 5. BoP on dental implants. It can be observed how the values keep decreasing after 1 month only in the test group : Effectiveness and compliance of an oscillating-rotating toothbrush in patients with dental implant
- Fig. 6. BoP on natural teeth. While the control group shows a mild increase between 1 month and 3 months, the test group values decrease during all the duration of the study : Effectiveness and compliance of an oscillating-rotating toothbrush in patients with dental implant
- Fig. 7. PPD on dental implants. No significant differences appreciable : Effectiveness and compliance of an oscillating-rotating toothbrush in patients with dental implant
- Fig. 8. PPD on natural teeth. No significant differences appreciable : Effectiveness and compliance of an oscillating-rotating toothbrush in patients with dental implant