Results: Implant success and survival rates (2)
Implant survival
The cumulative survival rate was 100% at 1-year follow-up, 99.6% at 3-year follow-up, and 98.6% at 5-year follow-up. All three late failures were in the platform-switching subgroup.
Clinical parameters/soft tissue parameters
Plaque index
Mean modified plaque indices were very low at below 0.5 for all but one measurement throughout the course of the study (Fig. 2a). At loading, the overall MPI was 0.27 ± 0.49 slightly increasing to 0.38 ± 0.52 at 5-year follow-up; the increase in MPI from loading to 5-year follow-up was statistically significant (p < 0.001). The MPI for the platform-switching subgroup was significantly lower than that for platform-matching subgroup at 3-year (p = 0.025), 4-year (p = 0.001), and 5-year (p = 0.028) follow-up.
Sulcus bleeding index
At loading, the overall SBI was 0.21 ± 0.47, remaining very low throughout the study and slightly increasing to 0.32 ± 0.49 at 5-year follow-up (Fig. 2b). The increase in SBI from loading to 5-year follow-up was statistically significant (p < 0.001). At 3-year follow-up, the SBI was significantly higher in the platform-matching subgroup than in the platform-switching subgroup (0.29 vs. 0.23; p = 0.039); this difference increased at 4-year and 5-year follow-up (0.41 vs. 0.20; p = 0.001 and 0.50 vs. 0.27; p = 0.004, respectively).
Pocket probing depth
At loading, the PPD was 2.16 ± 1.05 mm; it decreased to 1.89 ± 1.04 mm at 6 months post-loading, increasing to 2.12 ± 1.04 mm at 1-year follow-up (Fig. 2c). From this point onward, the PPD increased to 2.34 ± 1.18 mm at 5-year follow-up. The increase in mean PPD from loading to 5-year follow-up was statistically significant (p = 0.032). The mean PPD for the platform-switching subgroup was significantly lower than that for the platform-matching subgroup at 4-year (2.20 mm vs. 2.77 mm; p = 0.012) and 5-year follow-up (2.23 mm vs. 2.70 mm; p = 0.011).
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