We are using cookies to implement functions like login, shopping cart or language selection for this website. Furthermore we use Google Analytics to create anonymized statistical reports of the usage which creates Cookies too. You will find more information in our privacy policy.
OK, I agree I do not want Google Analytics-Cookies
The International Journal of Prosthodontics
Login:
username:

password:

Plattform:

Forgotten password?

Registration

Int J Prosthodont 31 (2018), No. 6     22. Jan. 2019
Int J Prosthodont 31 (2018), No. 6  (22.01.2019)

Page 531-539, doi:10.11607/ijp.5883, PubMed:30408136


Implant Survival in the Edentulous Jaw: 30 Years of Experience. Part II: A Retro-Prospective Multivariate Regression Analysis Related to Treated Arch and Implant Surface Roughness
Jemt, Torsten
Purpose: To report retro-prospective, long-term data on the prevalence of implant failures related to maxillary and mandibular arches and to different implant surfaces in a large number of edentulous patients.
Materials and Methods: Altogether, 3,493 and 1,092 edentulous arches were consecutively treated with implants with turned (1986-2002) or moderately rough (2003-2015) surfaces, respectively, during two time periods at one referral clinic. All implant failures were consecutively identified during routine follow-up, and a multivariate logistic regression analysis was performed to analyze implant failure related to arch and implant surface.
Results: Overall cumulative survival rates (CSR) for arches treated with turned surface implants were 75.7% and 94.6% for the maxilla and mandible, respectively. The corresponding 10-year CSRs for arches treated with implants with a moderately rough surface were 91.9% and 96.1%, respectively. The strongest significant association (P < .05) with risk for implant failure was the maxilla, and this was more pronounced for implants with a turned surface. Age at surgery, implant surgeon, calendar year of surgery, and time of follow-up also had significant associations with risk of implant failure (P < .05).
Conclusion: Risk for implant failure was significantly higher for treatment in the maxilla, but this risk was decreased significantly when using implants with a moderately rough surface. The impact of surface was not so obvious for treatment in the mandible. Risk for late implant failures after the first year was lower for implants with a moderately rough surface in the maxilla, but this risk seemed to be comparable for the different surfaces in the mandible.