Please activate JavaScript!
Please install Adobe Flash Player, click here for download
ePaper created 2016-09-20, 16:58:27 | version 1.38.0
Journal of Oral Science & Rehabilitation Volume 2 | Issue 3/2016 57 I m m e d i a t e l o a d i n g u s i n g g u i d e d s u r g e r y S t a t i s t i c a l a n a l y s i s Statistical analysis was performed using SPSS for Windows (Version 18.0; SPSS, Chicago, Ill., U.S.). Descriptive analysis was performed using mean, standard deviation and frequency distri- bution.Alifetable analysisofimplant cumulative survival rates (CSRs) was calculated. Kaplan– Meier survival analysis was performed to allow estimation of survival over time, even when pa- tients dropped out orwere followed for different lengths of time. The Wilcoxon signed-rank test for paired data was utilized to compare overall bone levels between baseline (implant place- ment) and follow-ups in both healed and post- extractionsites,andtocompareboneremodeling between post-extraction and healed sites at the last follow-up examination. The implant was used as the statistical unit of the analysis. All statistical comparisons were conducted at the 0.05 level of significance. Results All 27 selected and analyzed patients met the in- clusion criteria. Patients received a total of 160 NobelActive implants (22 narrow diameter, 106 regular diameter and 32 wide diameter) with a moderately rough surface (highly crystalline and phosphate-enrichedtitaniumoxide).Onehundred and five implants were placed into healed sites and55intopost-extractionsockets.Eachpatient received at least one post-extraction implant. Patients were clinically followed for up to five years. Atthelastfollow-up,nopatientshaddropped out and no deviation from the original protocol had occurred. All of the collected data were in- cluded in the statistical analysis. Only one post- extractionimplantfailedinonepatient,whosho- wed poor oral hygiene, during the second year, and showed clinical signs of mobility and infecti- on, resulting in an overall implant CSR of 99.4%. The life table analysis is summarized in Table 1. All prostheses were in situ at the last follow-up, accounting for a cumulative prosthetic survival rate of 100% up to five years after insertion. Two implants (1.25%) showed marginalbone remodeling of greater than 3 mm at the last follow-up. However, none of the implants pre- sented with an exposed implant neck, and no surgical intervention was performed. All of the affectedpatientsunderwentnonsurgicaltherapy consistingofmanualdebridementusingtitanium curettes and a glycine-based air–powder abra- sive device, and local application of antimicrobi- al agents (minocycline HCl 1 mg, Arestin, Ora- Pharma, Horsham, Pa., U.S.), followed by oral hygiene instructions and motivation, together with a strict follow-up protocol. At the subse- quent follow-ups, the bone recession had stop- pedandthesofttissueremainedstable.Noother biological or mechanical complications occurred during the entire follow-up period, resulting in a cumulative implant and prosthetic success rate of 97.9%. Atthelastfollow-up(meanof29months),the marginalboneremodelingwas-0.58±0.98 mm. Implants placed into post-extraction sockets (0.42±0.99mm)showedstatisticallylowermar- ginal bone remodeling compared with implants placed into healed sites (-0.67 ± 0.97 mm; P = 0.026). At the last follow-up session, bleeding after carefulinsertionofaperiodontalprobe1mminto the mucosalsulcus paralleltothe abutment sur- facewas detected aroundthree implants (1.6%). Table 1 Table 1 Life table analysis of all surviving implants.* Period (years) Surviving implants Failed implants Not followed CSR (%)† 0–1 160 0 0 100.0 1–2 160 0 0 100.0 2–3 160 1 11 99.4 3–4 148 0 48 99.4 4–5 100 0 79 99.4 5 21 – – 99.4 * According to the last recorded patient follow-up. † Cumulative survival rate. Volume 2 | Issue 3/201657 0–116000100.0 1–216000100.0 2–316011199.4 3–414804899.4 4–510007999.4 521 – – 99.4