» Articles » PMID: 16907779

Early Implant Failure. Prognostic Capacity of Periotest: Retrospective Study of a Large Sample

Overview
Specialty Dentistry
Date 2006 Aug 16
PMID 16907779
Citations 18
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

Objectives: The objectives of this study were to determine the accuracy of Periotest to monitor primary implant stability at first-stage surgery, to identify by multivariate analysis the variables associated with early implant failure and to compare Periotest with radiographic study in the diagnosis of implant stability at second-stage surgery (during osseointegration period).

Material And Methods: A 10-year retrospective study was conducted on 1084 Brånemark implants placed in 316 patients. Clinical variables, implant diameter and length, Periotest values (PTVs) and radiological variables were analyzed in bivariate and multivariate studies in order to determine their influence on early implant failure.

Results: After examination of the sensitivity and specificity values obtained for different PTV cutoff points, a cutoff PTV of -2 was selected (84% sensitivity and 39% specificity). In the bivariate analysis, early failure was significantly related to smoking habits, implant location, bone type, implant features and PTVs (-2 and >or=-2). In the final multiple logistic model, only age (odds ratio (OR)=4.53; 95% confidence interval (CI), 1.34-15.27), smoking habits (OR=2.5; 95% CI, 1.3-4.79), bone type (OR=1.93; 95% CI, 1.01-3.7) and PTV at first surgery (OR=3.01; 95% CI, 1.5-6.02) were independently related to early failure.

Conclusions: The Periotest (with -2 cutoff) at first surgery offers high sensitivity in the prognosis of early implant loss and shows a greater capacity to evaluate stability during the osseointegration period compared with radiographic study.

Citing Articles

A three-year prospective cohort study evaluating implant stability utilising the Osstell® and Periotest™ devices.

Reynolds I, Winning L, Polyzois I Front Dent Med. 2025; 4:1139407.

PMID: 39916929 PMC: 11797769. DOI: 10.3389/fdmed.2023.1139407.


Comparative evaluation of hard and soft tissue parameters by using short implants and standard long implants with sinus lift for prosthetic rehabilitation of posterior maxilla.

Durrani F, Karthickraj S, Imran F, Ahlawat S, Kumari E, Vani S J Indian Soc Periodontol. 2024; 28(1):106-112.

PMID: 38988954 PMC: 11232800. DOI: 10.4103/jisp.jisp_436_23.


Do dental implants installed in different types of bone (I, II, III, IV) have different success rates? A systematic review and meta-analysis.

Rosa C, Bento V, Duarte N, Sayeg J, Santos T, Pellizzer E Saudi Dent J. 2024; 36(3):428-442.

PMID: 38525185 PMC: 10960139. DOI: 10.1016/j.sdentj.2023.12.007.


Comparison of insertion torque, implant stability quotient and removal torque, in two different implant designs with and without osseodensification. - An ex vivo bench top study.

Gandhi Y, Padhye N J Oral Biol Craniofac Res. 2023; 13(2):249-252.

PMID: 36818026 PMC: 9930143. DOI: 10.1016/j.jobcr.2023.02.004.


Clinical Evaluation of Short Tuberosity Implants among Type 2 Diabetic and Non-Diabetic Patients: A 5 Year Follow-Up.

Tulbah H, Alsahhaf A, AlRumaih H, Vohra F, Abduljabbar T Medicina (Kaunas). 2022; 58(10).

PMID: 36295647 PMC: 9611925. DOI: 10.3390/medicina58101487.