Implant survival and success rates in patients with risk factors: results from a long-term retrospective study with a 10 to 18 years follow-up

F. De Angelis, P. Papi, F. Mencio, D. Rosella, S. Di Carlo, G. Pompa

Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Sciences, “Sapienza” University of Rome, Rome, Italy. Papi.piero@gmail.com

---

• Maxillofacial Surgery

OBJECTIVE: Risk factors for implant therapy are represented by all general and local conditions that through various mechanisms can increase either short-term and long-term failure risk. The aim of this study is to assess the implant survival and implant success rates with single and multiple risk factors.

PATIENTS AND METHODS: To address the research purpose, a retrospective cohort study was designed and implemented, including a sample of 225 patients with a total of 871 implants placed. The following risk factors were considered: smoking, bruxism, bone augmentation procedures and the presence of load risk (implants with crown/implant relation > 0.8; angulation > 25°; presence of cantilever).

Follow-up ranged from 10 years to 18 years (average follow-up 13.6 years).

Failures were subdivided into short-term failures, before the prosthetic phase, and long-term failures, after definitive prosthesis. The success criteria published by Albrektsson and Zarb were adopted. A Cox proportional hazard regression model was used to calculate hazard ratio, with a statistically significant p-value <0.05.

RESULTS: Out of the 871 implants placed, 138 did not meet the success criteria, (success rate 84.16%), sixty (43.47%) were classified as “early failure” and seventy-eight as “late failure” (56.53%). A total of 70 dental implants were removed, with a survival rate of 91.96%.

CONCLUSIONS: The presence of a single risk factor does not imply a marked increase of failure risk. Among the analyzed factors, the one that proved to be the most dangerous was bruxism, even when presented as the only risk factor. Bruxism with load risk proved to be the most dangerous association (success rate 69.23%) and could be included among the absolute contraindications for implant treatment.

Free PDF Download