4.5 Article

Immediate functional loading of edentulous maxilla: A 5-year retrospective study of 388 titanium implants

期刊

JOURNAL OF PERIODONTOLOGY
卷 76, 期 6, 页码 1016-1024

出版社

AMER ACAD PERIODONTOLOGY
DOI: 10.1902/jop.2005.76.6.1016

关键词

dental implants; immediate loading; jaw; edentulous; maxilla; regression analysis

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: Immediate functional loading is a new surgical-prosthetic technique that can be used extensively in implant placement. Because of a lack of experimental reports regarding edentulous maxilla, we decided to evaluate the survival rate of immediately loaded dental implants in this area. Methods: Forty-three patients (44.4% male) with a median age of 55 years receiving 388 implants (mean 9.0 per case) were enrolled in this study. Cross-arch acrylic provisional restorations were performed in the same stage. Data were analyzed by Kaplan-Meier product limit estimation. Stratiflcation of implants survival was performed for the available variables of interest, and comparisons were analyzed by a log rank test. Cox algorithm was used for multivariable analysis. Results: At 5-year follow-up, the crude survival rate (overall survival not stratified according to any available variable) was 98%. All failures occurred within 6 months from loading. We found differences in survival relating to: 1) implant diameter (99.37% for diameter <= 5.25 mm and 93.75% for diameter > 5.25 mm); 2) number of implants (99.29% for <= 10 implants and 96.30% for > 10); and 3) gender (97.08% and 99.54 % for males and females, respectively). Cox regression analysis showed that diameter of implants adjusted for patient age and gender was associated to an average risk of failure (hazard rate) of 3.13 (P value = 0.042, 95% confldence interval 1.04 to 9.43) per mm (from 3 to 6.5). Conclusions: Immediate functional loading is a reliable surgical-prosthetic procedure in edentulous maxillae. Implants with wider diameter are associated with a higher risk of failure.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据