Please activate JavaScript!
Please install Adobe Flash Player, click here for download
ePaper created 2016-05-19, 12:42:25 | version 1.38.0
research | 112 2016 implants retrospective study: anterior maxilla, posterior max- illa, anterior mandible, and posterior mandible.35 In his report, the location of implants did not appear to haveanyeffectonimplantsurvival,implantfracture rates,screwloosening,orscrewfracture.Pareinetal. analysed 392 consecutively placed Brånemark im- plants that were inserted in 152 partially edentulous posterior mandibles and restored with 56 crown and 168 bridge restorations in a long-term retrospective study.36 The CSR of all implants in the posterior mandible was 89.0 per cent at six years. Fewer complications were found in implant pros- theseslocatedexclusivelyinthepremolarregionver- sus molar and mixed molar-premolar implant resto- rations. Drago investigated the location-related osseointegration of 673 implants placed in 169 pa- tientsthatwereobservedfromsevenmonthstoeight years following occlusal loading.14 Implant osseo integration was 89.1 per cent in the anterior maxilla, 71.4 percentintheposteriormaxilla,96.7percentin the anterior mandible, and 98.7 per cent in the pos- terior mandible. Moy et al. analysed implant failure rates and associated risk factors, observed implant failureof8.16percentinthemaxillaand4.93percent in the mandible.37 Increased age (over 60) was strongly associated with the risk of implant failure. Bass et al., evaluating 303 patients with 1,097 im- plantsoverathree-yearperiod,assessedthesuccess rate of implants in the maxilla at 93.4 per cent and 97.2 per cent in the mandible.38 Poor bone quality played the major role in implant failure with bone quantity demonstrating less importance. AllpresentedreportsappeartoagreethattheCSR of dental implants is generally high and that implant location plays an important role in implant success. CSR of implants in the mandible seems to be slightly higher than in the maxilla—a difference of about 4 percent.Thesuccessrateofimplantsintheanterior regions seems to be higher than in the posterior re- gions of the jaws, mostly due to the quality of bone: about 12 per cent difference between anterior maxilla and posterior maxilla, and about 4 per cent difference between anterior mandible and posterior mandible.Onthebasisofreviewedliteraturereports, an implant treatment in the anterior mandible ap- pearstobethemostsuccessful.Theposteriormaxilla appears to be the least successful region of the jaws for implant rehabilitation. Conclusion There is a trend of escalating levels of HFU in dif- ferent parts of the oral cavity. The highest being the anterior mandible, followed by the posterior maxilla, posterior mandible, anterior maxilla and posterior maxilla with sinus lift procedure respectively. Esti- matedHFUcanassistthesurgicalphase,asthenum- ber of the ancillary procedures can be pre-estimated according to different areas in the mouth during the diagnostic phase._ Editorial note: A list of references is available from thepublisher. Fig. 1 Average HFU of different areas in the mouth Zones (D1–D5) No. of Cases Avg. HFU per zone 1 14 655 2 33 599 3 31 562 4 19 529 5 3 213 Total 100 Table 2 contact Dr Souheil R. Hussaini, BDS, MS Oral Implantology Medical Center 204 Al Wahda Building, Port Saeed Rd, Deira, PO Box 39695 Dubai, UAE Tel.: +971 4 2956595 Fax: +971 4 2958757 souheilh@eim.ae www.ID-SC.com 1122016 114655 233599 331562 419529 53213 Tel.: +97142956595 Fax: +97142958757