Abstract
Purpose
Innovations in macroimplant design, specifically ultrawide implants 7.0 mm or greater in diameter, have allowed immediate molar replacement. This is a retrospective study assessing the survival rates of ultrawide diameter implants (7.0, 8.0, 9.0 mm) immediately placed into molar extraction sockets. Implants were followed up to 144 months post-placement.
Materials and methods
A retrospective study was conducted of all patients treated in a private surgical practice between January 1, 2008, and December 31, 2020, who received ultrawide dental implants (7.0, 8,0, 9.0mm.) placed immediately into molar extraction sockets. Wide diameter healing abutments were placed on all implants at the time of surgery. Abutments and crown restorations were fabricated after at least 4 months of unloaded healing. Patient age, gender, implant location and implant diameters were examined for survival. Insertion torque values at the time of placement and time in function were also evaluated. Biometric statistics were computed with P values (<0.05. Descriptive and bivariate statistics were computed; P values were set at .05.
Results
: Five hundred forty-four patients (225 males; 319 females) [average age 62.5 years; range 27 to 95] had 563 implants placed. Five hundred thirty-five of five hundred sixty-three (535/563) implants survived; 28 failed [clinical survival rate (CSR) 95.03%]. Number and time in function were: 0–12 years 100%; 0–9 years 85%; 0–6 years 69%; 0–3 years 35% or 10–12 years 16%; 7–9 years 16%; 4–6 years 34%; 0–3 years 35%. No significant differences were found between gender and implant failures (p = 0.22). Maxillary (266/285; 93.3%) and mandibular (269/278; 96.8%) implant CSRs were not significantly different. Three implant diameters were used: 7.0 mm (206/563) [36.6%]; 8.0 mm (267/563) [47.4%]; 9.0 mm (90/563) [15.9%]. Clinical survival rates were: 7.0 mm (201/206) [97.6%]; 8.0 mm (252/267) [94.4%]; 9.0 mm (82/90) [91.1%]. Mean age for patients with failed implants did not show any significant differences (p = 0.1398). Fifteen of the 28 failed implants failed within 120 da ys of surgical placement (prior to definitive restoration; [53.6%]; 4 implants failed between 4 and 12 months [14.3%]; 9 implants failed at least 1-year post-loading [32.1%].
Conclusions
The results of this long-term retrospective study regarding ultrawide diameter implants suggested that these implants were viable treatment options for immediate molar replacement following tooth extraction in either jaw with an unloaded healing protocol. High clinical survival rates were reported over a 144 month (12 year) timeframe.
This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved
No comments:
Post a Comment