Table 2 Patient demographics
author: Sven Marcus Beschnidt,Claudio Cacaci,Kerem Dedeoglu,Detlef Hildebrand,Helfried Hulla,Gerhard Iglhaut,Gerald Krennmair,Markus Sch | publisher: drg. Andreas Tjandra, Sp. Perio, FISID
Table 2 Patient demographics
Overall
Subgroup*
Platform switching
Platform matching
Patients, n (%)
196 (100)
144
41
Sex, n (%)
Male
87 (44.4)
62 (43.1)
19 (46.3)
Female
109 (55.6)
82 (56.9)
22 (53.7)
Age, years
Mean (SD)
51.5 (14.2)
53.1 (14.4)
47.4 (12.9)
Range
17.9–82.1
17.9–82.1
19.3–78.5
Pre-implant bone surgeries, n
Autogenous bone grafting
31
n/a
n/a
Socket preservation
1
n/a
n/a
Others
16
n/a
n/a
Pre-implant soft tissue surgeries, n
Palatal soft tissue graft
15
n/a
n/a
Other
1
n/a
n/a
Bone quality, %
D1: mainly homogenous bone
12.8
8.9
22.4
D2: compact bone thick
42.2
42.4
41.8
D3: compact thin/cancellous good density
42.2
45.3
35.8
D4: compact thin/cancellous low density
2.8
3.4
0.0
Reasons for tooth loss, n (%)
Caries
53 (19.3)
36 (18.4)
13 (19.4)
Endodontic
96 (35.0)
67 (34.2)
24 (35.8)
Fracture
35 (12.8)
32 (16.3)
3 (4.5)
Periodontal
46 (16.8)
33 (16.8)
13 (19.4)
Endodontic and periodontal
3 (1.1)
3 (1.5)
0 (0.0)
Caries and periodontal
4 (1.5)
4 (2.0)
0 (0.0)
Endodontic and fracture
2 (0.7)
1 (0.5)
1 (1.5)
Others
35 (12.8)
20 (10.2)
13 (19.4)
Missing
11 (3.9)
Smoking status, n (%)
Non-smoker
166 (86.5)
121 (85.2)
37 (90.2)
Mild smoker (≤ 10/day)
18 (9.4)
13 (9.2)
4 (9.8)
Heavy smoker (> 10/day)
8 (4.2)
8 (5.6)
0 (0.0)
General health status, n (%)
ASA P1
161 (85.6)
118 (85.5)
34 (82.9)
ASA P2
26 (13.8)
20 (14.5)
6 (14.6)
ASA P3
1 (0.5)
0 (0.0)
1 (2.4)
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
Table 2 Patient demographics
| Overall | Subgroup* | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Platform switching | Platform matching | ||
| Patients, n (%) | 196 (100) | 144 | 41 |
| Sex, n (%) | |||
| Male | 87 (44.4) | 62 (43.1) | 19 (46.3) |
| Female | 109 (55.6) | 82 (56.9) | 22 (53.7) |
| Age, years | |||
| Mean (SD) | 51.5 (14.2) | 53.1 (14.4) | 47.4 (12.9) |
| Range | 17.9–82.1 | 17.9–82.1 | 19.3–78.5 |
| Pre-implant bone surgeries, n | |||
| Autogenous bone grafting | 31 | n/a | n/a |
| Socket preservation | 1 | n/a | n/a |
| Others | 16 | n/a | n/a |
| Pre-implant soft tissue surgeries, n | |||
| Palatal soft tissue graft | 15 | n/a | n/a |
| Other | 1 | n/a | n/a |
| Bone quality, % | |||
| D1: mainly homogenous bone | 12.8 | 8.9 | 22.4 |
| D2: compact bone thick | 42.2 | 42.4 | 41.8 |
| D3: compact thin/cancellous good density | 42.2 | 45.3 | 35.8 |
| D4: compact thin/cancellous low density | 2.8 | 3.4 | 0.0 |
| Reasons for tooth loss, n (%) | |||
| Caries | 53 (19.3) | 36 (18.4) | 13 (19.4) |
| Endodontic | 96 (35.0) | 67 (34.2) | 24 (35.8) |
| Fracture | 35 (12.8) | 32 (16.3) | 3 (4.5) |
| Periodontal | 46 (16.8) | 33 (16.8) | 13 (19.4) |
| Endodontic and periodontal | 3 (1.1) | 3 (1.5) | 0 (0.0) |
| Caries and periodontal | 4 (1.5) | 4 (2.0) | 0 (0.0) |
| Endodontic and fracture | 2 (0.7) | 1 (0.5) | 1 (1.5) |
| Others | 35 (12.8) | 20 (10.2) | 13 (19.4) |
| Missing | 11 (3.9) | ||
| Smoking status, n (%) | |||
| Non-smoker | 166 (86.5) | 121 (85.2) | 37 (90.2) |
| Mild smoker (≤ 10/day) | 18 (9.4) | 13 (9.2) | 4 (9.8) |
| Heavy smoker (> 10/day) | 8 (4.2) | 8 (5.6) | 0 (0.0) |
| General health status, n (%) | |||
| ASA P1 | 161 (85.6) | 118 (85.5) | 34 (82.9) |
| ASA P2 | 26 (13.8) | 20 (14.5) | 6 (14.6) |
| ASA P3 | 1 (0.5) | 0 (0.0) | 1 (2.4) |
- 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