Materials & methods : A study on peri‐implant complications in implants (5)
When a two‐stage technique was performed (i.e., sinus floor augmentation without implant insertion or staged‐approach GBR), a healing period of at least 6 months was observed before implant insertion. The implants were functionally loaded after 3 to 6 months of the implant placement.
2.3.3 Follow‐up
After surgery, for a maintenance program, all patients followed an individual SPT. The SPT consisted in a custom path of follow‐up visits and oral hygiene professional session; all patients during SPT were motivated and instructed for mechanical removal of bacterial plaque through daily oral hygiene procedures. Follow‐up visits after suture removal were scheduled for 1, 3, 6, and 12 months during the first postoperative year and annually thereafter. During each annual recall, patients underwent a clinical assessment to check peri‐implant soft tissue conditions.
Probing depth values were recorded after implant placement and after prosthesis positioning (baseline). Clinical parameters were recorded immediately after prosthesis positioning at 3, 6, and 12 months. Furthermore, long‐cone parallel radiographic projection techniques were used to establish the baseline and to assess the crestal bone changes. The baseline radiographic assessment was obtained at time of abutment connection and prosthetic functionalization. The development of peri‐implant disease has been described based on comparison of values at baseline and at subsequent examinations. When clinical signs suggested the presence of peri‐implantitis, a radiograph of the site confirmed the diagnosis. These patients were treated with the appropriated surgical therapy and they were not kept in the later follow‐up. (These data will be the subject of another article in the finishing phase.)
2.4 Statistical analysis
The StatsDirect 3.0 (StatsDirect; 9 Bonville Chase, Altrincham, WA14 4QA CHESHIRE, UK) was used for the statistical analysis. The survival analysis methods applied were the Kaplan‐Meier survival analysis and the follow‐up life table analysis of Cutler and Ederer (1958) described by Ferrigno et al. Both statistical methods allowed the evaluation of cumulative implants survival and success rates according to the described criteria of success.
Serial posts:
- A retrospective cohort study on peri‐implant complications in implants
- Introduction : A study on peri‐implant complications in implants
- Materials & methods : A study on peri‐implant complications in implants (1)
- Materials & methods : A study on peri‐implant complications in implants (2)
- Materials & methods : A study on peri‐implant complications in implants (3)
- Materials & methods : A study on peri‐implant complications in implants (4)
- Materials & methods : A study on peri‐implant complications in implants (5)
- Results : A study on peri‐implant complications in implants
- Discussion : A study on peri‐implant complications in implants (1)
- Discussion : A study on peri‐implant complications in implants (2)
- Discussion : A study on peri‐implant complications in implants (3)
- Conclusion : A study on peri‐implant complications in implants
- Table 1. Patient and implant distribution among groups
- Table 2. Baseline information (1,991 implants)
- Table 3. Life table analysis and cumulative survival and success rate
- Table 4. Survival and success rate at implant and patient level
- Figure 1. Peri‐implantitis over the study period of 10 years at patient and implant level
- Table 5. Differences between 5 years and 10 years of function