Implant Surface Coating and Bone Quality‐Related Survival Outcomes Through 36 Months Post‐Placement of Root‐Form Endosseous Dental Implants

Abstract

Survival rates from placement to 36 months were reported for the ongoing Dental Implant Clinical Research Group studies of root-form endosseous dental implants. Failure rates for all implants were similar in bone qualities 1 and 2 (6.2% and 6.7%, respectively) and slightly higher in bone qualities 3 and 4 (8.5% and 8.7%, respectively). Hydroxyapatite (HA)-coated implants had an overall failure rate of 3.9% over 36 months in all bone qualities combined, while non-coated implants had a 13.4% failure rate for the same parameters. For each bone quality, there was a significant difference in implant survival for the non-coated implants (P < 0.01). The highest failure rates for non-coated implants were in bone qualities 3 and 4 (19.1% and 25.5%, respectively). No major difference in survival was found for HA-coated implants placed in each bone quality. Possible reasons for the differences in survival are discussed.

Comparison of implant survival with implants placed in acceptable and compromised bone: a literature review

“…In another retrospective analysis, Truhlar et al [6] reported on 2,998 implants with a follow-up period of 36 months [6]. It is unclear if these data overlap with the data from the previous study published 6 years earlier.…”

“…Such differences were not observed in the better quality bone levels, (Table 3). In the RCT by Truhlar et al [6] HA-coated root-from endosseous implants had an overall failure rate of 3.9% over a 36 month period in all bone qualities combined compared to a 13.4% failure rate in non-coated implants (RR = 3.5, 95% CI 2.6, 4.5; p < 0.001), (Table 5). The highest failure rates and subsequent relative risks were in bone qualities 3 and 4 (19.1% and 25.5%, respectively).…”

A Retrospective, Multicenter Study on a Novo Wide‐Body Implant for Posterior Regions

“…Several studies report high long‐term success rates with endosseous implants 1–3 . Success rates depend on many factors, such as anatomic and loading conditions, surgical protocol, implant features, and patient‐related factors 4–9 . The posterior region of the upper and lower jaw is considered a risk zone for implant treatment because of the higher occlusal forces, poorer bone quality, and often limited bone quantity 10,11 .…”

The Influence of Implant Design on Bone Remodeling around Surface‐Modified Southern Implants®

“…Wide and short implants are often used in the posterior area, where poor bone quality and limited bone height, combined with higher occlusal forces, may influence the outcome. However, the use of a moderately rough surface increases the bone anchorage and may compensate for an unfavorable implant dimension or bone quality 68–71 …”