A 22‐Year Follow Up of Immediate Implant Placement without Bone Augmentation: A Case Series Study

Abstract

Purpose: To retrospectively evaluate the treatment outcome of immediate implants placed in fresh extraction sockets without bone augmentation after 22 years of function. Materials and Methods:The study group received implant therapy in 1997, including surgical placement and prosthodontic rehabilitation. The mean age of the subjects at the time of implant placement was 40 ± 5.54 years. A total of 35 subjects received 36 implants in fresh extraction sockets without bone augmentation. Definitive prostheses were placed 4 to 6 months after implant placement. Implant treatment outcomes were evaluated using clinical and radiographic parameters obtained during follow-up visits at 1, 5, 10, 15, 20, and 22 years after prosthetic loading. Results: Among the 35 treated subjects, five patients moved out of the country and could not be evaluated at the follow-up times. A total of 29 subjects were included in the study with a drop-out rate of 14.1%. Of these, one patient lost the implant during the osseointegration period before prosthodontic treatment. No other implant failure or complication during the rest of the follow-up period was reported, thus giving a cumulative survival rate of 97.2% during the 22-year follow-up. The change in marginal bone level was less than 2 mm in most subjects at the 22-year examination. The mean bone loss from baseline to 22-year follow-up was 1.61 mm, and the mean bone level at the 22-year follow-up examination was situated at 2.13 ± 0.023 mm from the implant platform, which was used as the reference point. Conclusions: Immediate implant placement in extraction sockets exhibits excellent prognosis even when bone augmentation is not performed.

Implications of considering peri‐implant bone loss a disease, a narrative review

“…Some of the included papers quoted by Wennerberg et al 35 Looking at these reports, the CSR of single implants with turned surface appears to range from 91.5% to 100% between 15 and 25 years of follow-up. [40][41][42][43][44][45][46][47] Similar CSR figures for implants placed in edentulous jaws to support fixed prosthesis have been presented, these figures ranging from 89.8% to 100% for follow-up periods between 15 and 30 years. 33,34,[47][48][49][50][51][52] A CSR range from 93% to 95.5% for implants placed in edentulous jaws to support overdentures and followed-up for periods between 10 and 20 years have been reported.…”

“…A CSR of 97.7% in a follow-up study up to 32 years 58 and a CSR of 87.9% for an investigation up to 36-years have been reported. 59 Most interestingly, many of these studies also detected that the majority of failures occurred during the first years of function 33,44,46,50,51,54,59,60 therefore ruling out periimplantitis as a major cause of implant failures. Several of these investigations also reported that soft tissue conditions suggesting presence of inflammation (i.e.…”

Long‐termresults of implants and implant‐supportedprostheses under systematic supportive implant therapy: A retrospective25‐yearstudy

“…For observational periods ≥20 years, an implant survival rate of 97% has been reported in 29 patients after a single immediate implant treatment 8 . In partially edentulous patients (n = 67), an implant survival rate of 90% was found after 20 years of supporting either single‐unit crowns or short‐span fixed dental prostheses 9 .…”

Factors influencing the failure of dental implants: A Systematic Review

“…Since Brånemark introduced oral implants in the 1960s, they have been a reliable and optimal restoration option for missing teeth [16][17][18][19][20]. Regarding esthetics function, mastication, and speech function, dental implants are considered as effective oral rehabilitation [21].…”