ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: Although the long-term success rate of dental implants is currently close to 95%, it is necessary to provide more evidence on the factors related to the failure of osseointegration and survival. PURPOSE: To establish the risk factors associated with the failure of osseointegration and survival of dental implants with an internal connection and machined collar and to establish a predictive statistical model. MATERIALS AND METHODS: An analytical, retrospective, and observational clinical study of a sample of 297 implants with a follow-up of up to 76 months. Independent variables related to the implant, patient, and surgical and rehabilitative procedures were identified. The dependent variables were failure of osseointegration and failure of implant survival after prosthetic loading. A survival analysis was carried out by applying the Kaplan-Meier model (significance for p < 0.05). The log-rank test and the Cox regression analysis were applied to the factors that presented differences. Finally, the regression logit function was used to determine whether it is possible to predict the risk of implant failure according to the analyzed variables with the data obtained in this study. RESULTS: The percentages of osseointegration and survival were 97.6 and 97.2%, respectively. For osseointegration, there were significant differences according to gender (p = 0.048), and the risk of nonosseointegration was 85% lower in women. Regarding survival, the Cox analysis converged on only two factors, which were smoking and treatment with anticoagulant drugs. The risk of loss was multiplied by 18.3 for patients smoking more than 10 cigarettes per day and by 28.2 for patients treated with anticoagulants. CONCLUSIONS: The indicated risk factors should be considered, but the analysis of the results is not sufficient to create a predictive model.
Subject(s)
Dental Implants , Dental Restoration Failure , Osseointegration , Female , Humans , Kaplan-Meier Estimate , Logistic Models , Male , Middle Aged , Proportional Hazards Models , Prosthesis Design , Retrospective Studies , Risk FactorsABSTRACT
El objetivo de este estudio establecer si el método de evaluación de la dimensión vertical mediante cefalometría y el convencional con rodillos de articulación, consiguen resultados sin diferencias estadísticamente significativas. Realización de una revisión sistemática conforme a la metodología PICO del Centro de Medicina Basada en la Evidencia de Oxford. Se formula una pregunta dirigida al objetivo fijado y se elabora una estrategia de búsqueda empleando MeSH key words específicos derivados de la pregunta en la base de datos PubMed hasta 2015 y libros de rehabilitación oral. Se consultan un total de 833 artículos por título, siendo 26 revisados a texto completo. Se analizan trabajos sobre distintos métodos de determinación de la dimensión vertical, haciendo especial hincapié en los basados en métodos cefalométricos. Finalmente 9 artículos cumplen los criterios de inclusión y se realiza una evaluación crítica del nivel de evidencia. No se ha encontrado suficiente evidencia científica que demuestre la repetibilidad de ambos métodos. Es necesario realizar estudios controlados y aleatorizados que comparen ambos métodos para determinar si son repetibles y reproducibles y obtienen resultados sin diferencias estadísticamente significativas.
The objective of this work was to establish if the method of evaluation of the vertical dimension by cephalometry and the common one with joint rollers, obtains results without statistically significant differences. We carried out a systematic review based on the PICO methodology of the Center for Evidence-Based Medicine for Oxford. A question aimed at the objective was made, and a search strategy was developed using specific MeSH key words derived from the question in the Pubmed database up to 2015 and oral rehabilitation books. A total of 833 items were consulted by tittle, and for 26 of these full text was reviewed. Works on different methods for determining the vertical dimension were studied, with special emphasis on those based on cephalometric methods. Finally 9 articles fulfilled the criteria for inclusion and a critical assessment of the evidence level was performed. We did not find sufficient scientific evidence to demonstrate the repeatability of these methods. It is necessary to realize randomized controlled trials comparing both methods to determine if they were statistically repeatable and reproducible.
Subject(s)
Humans , Vertical Dimension , Cephalometry/methods , Joints/anatomy & histology , Mouth Rehabilitation/methods , Reproducibility of ResultsABSTRACT
El objetivo de esta revisión sistemática fue evaluar los distintos diseños en el cuello del implante (pulido o tratado, con o sin intercambio de plataforma, o con o sin microespiras) y su posible influencia en la pérdida del hueso marginal periimplantario. Se llevo a cabo una revisión sistemática siguiendo la metodología PICO del Centro de Medicina Basada en la Evidencia de la Universidad de Oxford. La pregunta dirigida a la consecución de los objetivos fue: ¿Es el diseño del cuello del implante un factor crítico en la conservación del hueso marginal periimplantario? Se emplearon MeSH keywords específicos en las bases de datos Pubmed y Cochrane. Tres revisores independientes se pusieron de acuerdo en los estudios finalmente incluidos, obteniendo un índice de concordancia kappa de 0,88. De estos, se realizó una evaluación crítica del nivel de evidencia y también del riesgo de sesgo de los RCT mediante la Herramienta Cochrane. Se consultaron 445 artículos por título, incluyendo finalmente un total de 16 artículos a texto completo. La heterogeneidad de estos estudios impidió realizar un meta-análisis. No se encontró evidencia de que una determinada configuración del cuello del implante sea mejor que otra en la conservación del hueso marginal periimplantario y sin embargo, parece que una posición apico-coronal yuxtaósea del cuello pulido del implante respecto a la cresta ósea receptora pudiera ser crítica a ese respecto. No se encontró suficiente evidencia sobre la efectividad de las diferentes configuraciones de la región cervical del implante en la preservación del hueso marginal periimplantario. Son necesarios estudios clínicos controlados y aleatorizados a largo plazo para valorar los efectos de dichas modificaciones.
The aim of this systematic review was to assess whether different implant neck designs (polished or coated, with or without platform switching, either with or without microthreads) influence marginal bone resorption. A systematic review was conducted following the PICO methodology of the Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine of Oxford University. The question to the achievement of objectives was: Is the design of the implant neck a critical factor in the preservation of marginal bone levels? Specific MeSH keywords were used in the Pubmed and Cochrane databases. Three independent reviewers agreed on the studies ultimately included finding a concordance kappa index of 0.86. Of these articles, acritical evaluation of the level of evidence was performed and also the risk of bias of the RCT using the Cochrane tool. Four hundred forty-five items were reviewed by title, eventually including a total of 16 full-text articles. Heterogeneity of these studies made impossible the performance of a meta-analysis. No evidence that a particular configuration of the implant neck was better than another in preserving the peri-implant marginal bone was found, and yet it seems that an apico-coronal position juxta-osseous of the smooth neck of the implant relative to the bone crest could be decisive. Not enough evidence was found on the effectiveness of different configurations of the cervical region of the implant in the periimplant marginal bone preservation. More randomized controlled trials are needed to assess long-term effects of such modifications.
