An 11-Year Retrospective Research Study of the Predictive Factors of Peri-Implantitis and Implant Failure: Analytic-Multicentric Study of 1279 Implants in Peru

Abstract

Aim. To analyze the risk factors by logistic regression and perform the analysis of the survival rate of osseointegrated dental implants placed in public and private institutions. Methods. An analytic-multicentric study was carried out, where 1279 dental implants that were placed by specialists from January 2006 to October 2017 in public and private institutions (UPCH-SI, HCFAP, CMNAVAL, UPCH-SM, and UPSJB) were evaluated. The variables sex (X1), location (X2), hypertension (X3), antibiotic prophylaxis (X4), diabetes (X5), osteoporosis (X6), bisphosphonates (X7), history of periodontitis (X8), hypercholesterolemia (X9), bone quality (X10), bone quantity (X11), design (X12), smoker (X13), connection (X14), edentulism type (X15), staging (X16), 3D guided surgery (X17), load (X18), bone graft (X19), peri-implantitis (X20), mucositis (X21), and GBR (X22) were collected and analyzed by the Kaplan–Meier survival analysis. The logit analysis was performed among all the variables to choose the best statistical model that explains the true risk factors. The analysis was performed by multivariate logistic regression and the Kaplan–Meier test, at a level of statistical significance of p<0.05. Results. It was found that the failure rate of the 1279 implants evaluated was 17.98% corresponding to only 23 implants lost as they have good longevity over time. When establishing the best multivariate logistic regression model, it was found that the variables that remained stable in relation to their statistically significant value and more stable confidence intervals were age, osteoporosis, bisphosphonates, history of periodontitis, bone quality, bone graft, connection, number of implants, GBR (guided bone regeneration), and follow-up. Conclusions. Dental implants placed by specialists in public and private institutions had a failure rate similar to that in studies previously published in other countries.

The risk factors of early implant failure: A retrospective study of 6113 implants

“…To date, controversial options existed regarding the influence of bone augmentation procedures on early implant failure. Some studies reported that bone augmentation procedures had an adverse influence on both early implant survival 5‐7 and late implant survival, 36 whereas others reported no association between bone augmentation procedures and early implant failure 3,4,9 . The current study revealed that the implants placed in previously augmented sites showed higher early failure rates, regardless of whether they are in the maxilla or mandible.…”

Implant survival and risk factor analysis in regenerated bone: results from a 5-year retrospective study

“…Despite the high success rates of GBR (over 90% in most studies), some studies have reported success rates ranging from 61.5% to 100% with study designs involving different types of defect morphology, follow-up periods, and surgical procedures [ 13 ]. A multicenter retrospective study was conducted on the survival of implants over the course of 11 years, and the risk factors for failure were demonstrated by a logit model [ 26 ]. Based on those results, bone quality, bone augmentation, and GBR were suggested to be risk factors despite the high overall survival rate of the implants.…”

Survival rate and potential risk indicators of implant loss in non‐smokers and systemically healthy periodontitis patients: An up to 9‐year retrospective study

“…Some studies showed that patients with periodontitis had lower implant survival rate and higher incidence of complications after implant restoration 9,10 . The rates of peri‐implantitis in patients with periodontitis are higher than those in healthy individuals 11,12 . However, other studies proposed that under the condition of strictly controlled periodontitis, the implant survival rate could also be at a high level 13‐16 .…”