Implant failure predictors in the posterior maxilla: a retrospective study of 273 consecutive implants.

BACKGROUND: The goal of this study was to retrospectively analyze a cohort of 136 patients who underwent dental implant placement in the posterior maxilla at the University of Connecticut Health Center to assess and identify predictors for implant failure in the posterior maxilla. METHODS: Data were retrieved from patient charts to identify subjects older than 21 years of age who received dental implant(s) in the posterior maxilla. Patients without a postoperative baseline radiograph were excluded. A recall radiograph was taken 3 to 6 months after implant placement. If there was no recall radiograph, the subject was contacted for a recall visit that included a clinical evaluation and radiographs to determine the implant status. Based on a univariate screening, variables considered potential implant failure predictors included gender, diabetes, smoking, implant length, implant diameter, membrane use, sinus-elevation technique, and surgical complications. These parameters were further assessed, and a multivariable logistic regression was performed with implant failure as a dependant variable. All tests of significance were evaluated at the 0.05 error level. RESULTS: Two hundred seventy-three implants were placed in the posterior maxilla. Fourteen implants failed (early and late failures combined), resulting in a 94.9% overall survival rate. The survival rates for the sinus-elevation group and native bone group were 92.2% and 96.7%, respectively (P = 0.090). Based on the multivariable analysis, sinus floor-elevation procedures were not associated with increased risk for implant failure (P = 0.702). In contrast, smoking and surgical complications had a statistically significant effect on implant failure; the odds ratios for implant failure were 6.4 (P = 0.025) and 8.2 (P = 0.004), respectively. CONCLUSION: Sinus-elevation procedures with simultaneous or staged implant placement do not increase the risk for implant failure, whereas smoking and surgical complications markedly increase the risk for implant failure.

Rapid flow cytometric identification of putative CD14- and CD64- dendritic cells in whole blood.

Blood dendritic cells (DCs) may be identified as mononuclear leucocytes with high expression of HLA-DR, but lacking the antigens CD3, CD14, CD16, CD19, and CD56, which are characteristically expressed by T cell, monocytes, B cells, and natural killer cells. However, some DCs have recently been reported to express the monocyte-associated antigen CD14; also some monocytes may shed CD14 and so appear to be CD14-. It is therefore possible that the expression of CD64, which is absent on blood DCs but which is expressed by both CD14+ and CD14- monocytes may better distinguish DCs from monocytes. DCs were identified by flow cytometry as mononuclear leucocytes with the phenotype HLA-DR+, CD2-, CD16-, CD19-, CD57-, and either CD14- or CD64- and hence are described herein as either CD14- DCs or CD64- DCs, respectively. CD14- DCs and CD64- DCs occurred, respectively, at a concentration of 65 +/- 48 x 10(6) cells 1(-1) and 149 +/- 103 x 10(6) cells 1(-1) (mean +/- S.D.) in samples of peripheral blood (corresponding, respectively, to 3.0 +/- 1.8% and 6.6 +/- 3.8% of the mononuclear cells). The expression of CD14 and CD64 on monocytes in blood was also investigated. Cells with the immunophenotype CD14- CD64+ comprised 12.7 +/- 3.3% of the monocyte population and had high expression of HLA-DR. DCs identified as CD14- or CD64- were isolated by flow cytometric sorting, prepared for electron microscopy, and both were found to have the characteristic morphology of resting DCs. We conclude that mononuclear cells with the phenotype HLA-DR+, CD3-, CD16-, CD19-, CD56-, and CD64- are blood DCs that may be CD14+ or CD14-. The method described therefore provides a more accurate and rapid means of identifying circulating DCs.