Long‐term effectiveness of 6 mm micro‐rough implants in various indications: A 4.6‐ to 18.2‐year retrospective study

Abstract

Objectives To evaluate the long‐term effectiveness of 6 mm implants in various indications with a micro‐rough surface after 4.6–18.2 years in function and to assess key factors associated with implant survival, success, and biologic/technical complications. Materials and methods Fifty‐five patients with seventy‐four 6 mm implants placed from 2000 to 2013 attended the re‐examination assessing well‐established clinical and radiographic parameters, biologic and prosthetic complications, and patient‐reported outcome measures. Results Five implants were lost after a mean follow‐up period of 9.1 years resulting in a survival rate of 93.2%. All losses occurred in free‐end situations in the mandible. Smoking habit significantly reduced implant survival (hazard ratio 36.25). Two implants exhibited a history of peri‐implantitis, and one implant showed progressive marginal bone loss (MBL) resulting in a success rate of 89.2%. The mean MBL amounted to 0.029 mm. Increased MBL was found for implants placed in the maxilla (0.057 mm) and for implants with a diameter of 4.1 mm (0.043 mm). Soft tissue thickness (1.39 mm) and width of keratinized mucosa (1.91 mm) had no effect on MBL. Patient‐reported outcome measures showed high satisfaction (mean VAS scores 88%) and high quality of life (mean OHIP‐G14 score 2.2). Conclusion The present study demonstrated survival and success rates of 93.2% and 89.2% for 6 mm implants used in various indications. A factor leading to higher implant failure was smoking, whereas modulating factors increasing annual MBL included implants placed in the maxilla and implants with a diameter of 4.1 mm compared to 4.8 mm.

Optimizing the Surface Properties of Zirconium Implants with Germanium Coating

“…Rough surfaces are also believed to yield better osseointegration than smooth surfaces. This, subsequently, may enable more osteoblast cells to adhere and proliferate on the surface of Zr implants [42,43]. However, it is difficult to achieve sufficient surface roughness in Zr implants using methods that are typically used for Ti implants [44].…”

Unraveling the effectiveness of antibiotics for peri‐implantitis treatment: A scoping review

“…Dental implants are the primary and most predictable treatment approach to replacing missing teeth 1,2 . Despite their high success rate and longevity 2,3 around 20%–25% of dental implants are affected by peri‐implantitis after 5–10 years of implant placement 4,5 .…”

“…Dental implants are the primary and most predictable treatment approach to replacing missing teeth 1,2 . Despite their high success rate and longevity 2,3 around 20%–25% of dental implants are affected by peri‐implantitis after 5–10 years of implant placement 4,5 . Similarly to periodontitis, peri‐implantitis is defined as a biofilm‐associated pathologic condition affecting the tissue around dental implants, characterized by inflammation in the peri‐implant mucosa and subsequent progressive loss of supporting bone 6,7 …”

Changes of dental anxiety, aesthetic perception and oral health-related quality of life related to influencing factors of patients’ demographics after anterior implant treatment: a prospective study

“…Patients may not show the same self-perception and psychosocial impacts because of different demographics, such as age, gender, educational status, tooth loss number, smoking habit, simultaneously bone augmentation, loading timing and prosthesis type [ 14 , 15 ]. Previous studies have showed higher occurrence of tooth loss by periodontitis and subsequent implant failure in patients with smoking habit, which may cause a contradictory psychological need for the balance of the anterior implant treatment and the addiction to smoking [ 16 , 17 ]. Anterior implants involve the comprehensive solutions of surgery and prosthetics, such as simultaneously bone augmentation, loading timing and prosthesis type [ 18 , 19 ].…”