4.5 Article

A five-year life-table analysis on wide neck ITI implants with prosthetic evaluation and radiographic analysis: results from a private practice

Journal

CLINICAL ORAL IMPLANTS RESEARCH
Volume 17, Issue 5, Pages 512-520

Publisher

BLACKWELL PUBLISHING
DOI: 10.1111/j.1600-0501.2006.01271.X

Keywords

ITI implants; medium term; posterior mandible; posterior maxilla; private practice; prosthetic complications; radiographical evaluation; short implants; single molar crown; SLA; wide implants

Ask authors/readers for more resources

This paper reports a 5-year life-table analysis on wide neck (WN) ITI implants placed in a private practice. In 212 patients, 263 implants were placed in the posterior region; 97% rehabilitated the molar area. Implants in the mandible and in the maxilla were 61.2% and 38.8%, respectively; the mean implant length was 9.7 and 8.9 mm, respectively. Eighty-nine percent sites had both vestibular and buccal bone lamellae >= 1 mm, 9.1% had one of them < 1 mm and 1.9% had both lamellae < 1 mm. Sinus perforation during surgery occured in 52% of the maxillary implants. Prosthetic information was available for 249 implants; implants were involved in 157 single crowns (SC) and 80 fixed partial dentures (FPD). Radiographic analysis was performed on 102 implants that reached the 2-year control, and crestal bone loss (CBL) was measured. Results showed that five implants failed; the 5-year cumulative survival rate was 97.89%. The 1-year survival rate based on 259 implants was 98.8% and the 2-year survival rate based on 174 implants was 97.7%. In this 5-year timeframe, 94.3% of the SCs and 96.2% of the FPDs were free of complication. The mean CBL at the mesial and distal sides was 0.71 and 0.60 mm, respectively; bone losses > 1 and > 2 mm were recorded for 29.7% and 2.5% of the sides, respectively. This mid-term study showed that the WN ITI implants were highly predictable in private practice and that prosthetic complication in the molar area was an infrequent event.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available