Retrospective clinical analysis of risk factors associated with failed short implants

Chen, Li; Yang, Tao; Yang, Guangwen; Zhou, Na; Dong, Heng; Mou, Yongbin

doi:10.1111/cid.12879

Cited by 12 publications

(9 citation statements)

References 31 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…(6) We found that short implants (less than 10 mm) failed easily, with low osseointegration efficacy and patients’ poor bone quality leading to the increased early failure rate. Chen et al [ 24 ] found that the cumulative survival rate of short implants was 96.36%, which was slightly lower than the survival rate of standard implants (98.16%). Of the occurrences of short implant failure, 84.44% occurred in the early stage.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The survival rates and risk factors of implants in the early stage: a retrospective study

Yang

Zeng

et al. 2021

BMC Oral Health

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background Few large-sample studies in China have focused on the early survival of dental implants. The present study aimed to report the early survival rates of implants and determine the related influencing factors. Methods All patients receiving dental implants at our institution between 2006 and 2017 were included. The endpoint of the study was early survival rates of implants, according to gender, age, maxilla/mandible, dental position, bone augmentation, bone augmentation category, immediate implant, submerged implant category, implant diameter, implant length, implant torque, and other related factors. Initially, SPSS22.0 was used for statistical analysis. The Chi-square test was used to screen all factors, and those with p < 0.05 were further introduced into a multiple logistic regression model to illustrate the risk factors for early survival rates of implants. Results In this study, we included 1078 cases (601 males and 477 females) with 2053 implants. After implantation, 1974 implants were retained, and the early survival rate was 96.15%. Patients aged 30–60 years (OR 2.392), with Class I bone quality (OR 3.689), bone augmentation (OR 1.742), immediate implantation (OR 3.509), and implant length < 10 mm (OR 2.972), were said to possess risk factors conducive to early survival rates. Conclusions The early survival rate of implants in our cohort exceeded 96%, with risk factors including age, tooth position, bone quality, implant length, bone augmentation surgery, and immediate implantation. When the above factors coexist, implant placement should be treated carefully.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The survival rates and risk factors of implants in the early stage: a retrospective study

Yang

Zeng

et al. 2021

BMC Oral Health

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Clinical indicators such as bleeding on probing and bone loss are relatively easy to standardize, although no effect of OLP on these indicators has been observed. Implant position has been considered as a prognostic factor for implant success [29]. However, we could not perform subgroup analysis with implant position as a grouping variable due to lack of raw data.…”

Section: Overall Quality Strength and Consistency Of The Evidencementioning

confidence: 99%

Is oral lichen planus a risk factor for peri-implant diseases? A systematic review and meta-analysis

Xiong

Wang

et al. 2020

BMC Oral Health

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: To evaluate whether oral lichen planus (OLP) is a risk factor for peri-implant diseases (PIDs) with a systematic review and meta-analysis. Methods: Five electronic databases including Medline, Embase, Web of Science, the Cochrane Library and Scopus were searched. The included studies are observational human studies written in English. The population of interest included those with/without OLP who received dental implant treatment. The follow-up time after implantation was from 1 month to 20 years. The quality of the included articles regarding risk of bias and methodology were assessed with the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale or the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. The data involving exposure (OLP), primary outcomes (implants having PIDs) and secondary outcomes (probing depth/PD, bleeding on probing/BOP and bone loss/BL) and potential confounders were extracted. Heterogeneity was assessed by I 2 test. Dichotomous data are expressed as the risk ratio (RR) and 95% confidence interval (CI) which were calculated with a fixed effect model. Results: Of the 66 articles, two studies were enrolled and evaluated as high quality, which totally contained 68 participants receiving 222 (OLP vs. non-OLP, 112 vs. 110) implants with 12 to 120-month follow-up time. Proportions of implants with PIDs between OLP and non-OLP groups were as follows: 19.6% (22/112) vs. 22.7% (25/ 110) for PIM and 17.0% (19/112) vs. 10.9% (12/110) for PI. The meta-analysis revealed no recognizable difference in number of implants with PIDs

show abstract

Section: Overall Quality Strength and Consistency Of The Evidencementioning

confidence: 99%

Is oral lichen planus a risk factor for peri-implant diseases? A systematic review and meta-analysis

Xiong

Wang

et al. 2020

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: To evaluate whether oral lichen planus (OLP) is a risk factor for peri-implant diseases (PIDs) with a systematic review and meta-analysis.Methods: Five electronic databases including Medline, Embase, Web of Science, the Cochrane Library and Scopus were searched. The included studies are observational human studies written in English. The population of interest included those with/without OLP who received dental implant treatment. The follow-up time after implantation was from one month to 20 years. The quality of the included articles regarding risk of bias and methodology were assessed with the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale or the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. The data involving exposure (OLP), primary outcomes (implants having PIDs) and secondary outcomes (probing depth/PD, bleeding on probing/BOP and bone loss/BL) and potential confounders were extracted. Heterogeneity was assessed by I² test. Dichotomous data are expressed as the risk ratio (RR) and 95% confidence interval (CI) which were calculated with a fixed effect model.Results: Of the 66 articles, two studies were enrolled and evaluated as high quality, which totally contained 68 participants receiving 222 (OLP vs. non-OLP, 112 vs. 110) implants with 12 to 120-month follow-up time. Proportions of implants with PIDs between OLP and non-OLP groups were as follows: 19.6% (22/112) vs. 22.7% (25/110) for PIM and 17.0% (19/112) vs. 10.9% (12/110) for PI. The meta-analysis revealed no recognizable difference in number of implants with PIDs (PI: RR = 1.49, 95% CI 0.77-2.90, P = 0.24; PIM:RR = 0.88, 95% CI 0.53 -1.46, P = 0.61; PIDs: RR = 1.08, 95% CI 0.75 -1.55, P = 0.68) or BOP (RR = 0.90, 95% CI: 0.70-1.15, P = 0.40) between OLP and non-OLP groups.Conclusions: Available articles regarding the effects of OLP on PIDs remains very limited. Existing evidence does not support OLP as a suspected risk factor for PIDs. Large-scale prospective trials are required to validate the findings.

show abstract

Retrospective clinical analysis of risk factors associated with failed short implants

Cited by 12 publications

References 31 publications

The survival rates and risk factors of implants in the early stage: a retrospective study

The survival rates and risk factors of implants in the early stage: a retrospective study

Is oral lichen planus a risk factor for peri-implant diseases? A systematic review and meta-analysis

Is oral lichen planus a risk factor for peri-implant diseases? A systematic review and meta-analysis

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About