» Articles » PMID: 9576316

Retrospective Review of 1170 Endosseous Implants Placed in Partially Edentulous Jaws

Overview
Journal J Prosthet Dent
Specialty Dentistry
Date 1998 May 12
PMID 9576316
Citations 18
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

Statement Of Problem: Implant-supported restorations in the partially edentulous jaw have been performed at the Mayo Clinic for more than 10 years. Clinical performance of the implants and the prostheses should be reported to ensure effectiveness of this procedure.

Purpose: This retrospective study described results for implant survival, implant fracture rate, prosthetic complications, and design changes that may impact these results.

Material And Methods: A retrospective chart review was conducted of all registered implant patients in a large multispecialty medical center. Patients with a partially edentulous jaw who had received endosseous implants to support and retain dental prostheses were included in this review. Implant survival and fracture, prosthetic complications, and demographic data were recorded and analyzed through Kaplan-Meier methods.

Results: A total of 1170 implants were placed in four anatomic locations: anterior maxilla, posterior maxilla, anterior mandible, or posterior mandible. Location of implants was shown to have no effect on implant survival (p = 0.7398), implant fracture rates (p = 0.2385), screw loosening (p = 0.8253), or screw fracture (p = 0.2737). Development of new restorative components has resulted in significantly better rates of implant survival without fracture (p = 0.0054), screw function without loosening (p < 0.0001) and screw function without fracture (p = 0.0013). Implant survival seems to have been improved with the new components (p = 0.0513).

Conclusions: Implant survival in this study was independent of anatomic location of implants. Virtually all clinical performance factors were improved by design changes in implant restorative components that were brought to market in early 1991.

Citing Articles

CBCT in Dental Implantology: A Key Tool for Preventing Peri-Implantitis and Enhancing Patient Outcomes.

Hussaini S, Glogauer M, Sheikh Z, Al-Waeli H Dent J (Basel). 2024; 12(7).

PMID: 39056983 PMC: 11276053. DOI: 10.3390/dj12070196.


Survival of Dyna Implants: A Retrospective Study with 1 to 6 Years of Follow up.

Barikani H, Heidari M, Kharazifard M, Rokn A Front Dent. 2022; 18:45.

PMID: 35965701 PMC: 9355831. DOI: 10.18502/fid.v18i45.8341.


Fatigue Resistance of Cast-on Implant Abutment Fabricated with Three Different Alloys.

Puengpaiboon U, Didron P Eur J Dent. 2022; 17(1):62-69.

PMID: 35196721 PMC: 9949937. DOI: 10.1055/s-0041-1742124.


Effect of Application of a Bio-Adhesive on the Removal Torque Value and Rotational Misfit at the Implant-Abutment Junction: An In Vitro Study.

Arshad M, Khayat Zadeh S, Atai M, Shirani G, Romanos G, Bassir S Materials (Basel). 2021; 14(22).

PMID: 34832236 PMC: 8618869. DOI: 10.3390/ma14226832.


Clinical study on screw loosening in dental implant prostheses: a 6-year retrospective study.

Lee K, Shin K, Jung J, Cho H, Kwon K, Kim Y J Korean Assoc Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2020; 46(2):133-142.

PMID: 32364353 PMC: 7222622. DOI: 10.5125/jkaoms.2020.46.2.133.