Please activate JavaScript!
Please install Adobe Flash Player, click here for download
ePaper created 2017-06-02, 10:40:19 | version 1.38.0
S u c c e s s , s u r v i v a l a n d f a i l u r e r a t e s o f d e n t a l i m p l a n t s Success, survival and failure rates of dental implants: a cross-sectional study Amanda Bandeira de Almeida,a Luciana Prado Maia,b Umberto Demoner Ramos,b Sérgio Luís Scombatti de Souzac & Daniela Bazan Paliotoc a Department of Prosthesis and Periodontology, Faculty of Dentistry, University of Campinas, Piracicaba, Brazil b Presidente Prudente dental school, University of Western São Paulo, Presidente Prudente, Brazil c Department of Bucco-Maxilo-Facial Surgery, Traumato- logy and Periodontology, School of Dentistry of Ribeirão Preto, University of São Paulo, Ribeirão Preto, Brazil C o r r e s p o n d i n g a u t h o r : Dr. Amanda Bandeira de Almeida Avenue Barão de Serra Negra, 1318 Apartment 11 Vila Rezende 13405-220 Piraciacaba-SP Brazil T +55 16 981681688 amanda.bandeira.almeida@usp.br H o w t o c i t e t h i s a r t i c l e : Bandeira de Almeida A, Prado Maia L, Ramos UD, Scombatti de Souza SL, Bazan Palioto D. Success, survival and failure rates of dental implants: a cross-sectional study. J Oral Science Rehabilitation. 2017 Jun;3(1):24–31. Abstract O b j e c t i v e The purpose of the present study was to evaluate the success, survival and failure rates of dental implants placed in the Implantology Clinic at the School of Dentistry of Ribeirão Preto of the University of São Paulo, Ribeirão Preto, Brazil. M a t e r i a l s a n d m e t h o d s The cross-sectional study included only patients who had undergone prosthetic rehabilitation. The following criteria were evaluated by inter- view and dental record analysis: age, sex, presence of systemic disease, history of smoking, area in which the implant was placed, implant diam- eter and height, and type of prosthesis seated on the implant. The fol- lowing parameters were clinically analyzed: pain, mobility, probing depth, bleeding on probing, and presence or absence of exudate. The amount of bone loss was assessed radiographically. The study included 35 implants placed in 19 patients. R e s u l t s There was a success rate of 74% after definitive prosthetic rehabilitation, while six implants showed bone loss of between 2 and 4 mm, being clas- sified as satisfactory survival. There was no relationship between the success and/or survival rate and any of the parameters evaluated. Four implants presented with periimplant mucositis, while periimplantitis was observed in two implants. Regarding the definitive restorations, 17 prostheses were classified as successful, while there were complications in eight prostheses. C o n c l u s i o n Success and survival rates of 74% and 100%, respectively, were ob- served. Within the limitations of this cross-sectional study, the data suggest that the implant success rate does not seem to be related to factors like age, sex, habits, systemic disease, macroscopic characteris- tics or area in which the implant was placed. K e y w o r d s Dental implants, periodontics, periimplantitis. 24 Volume 3 | Issue 2/2017 Journal of Oral Science & Rehabilitation