Please activate JavaScript!
Please install Adobe Flash Player, click here for download
ePaper created 2017-06-02, 10:40:19 | version 1.38.0
Table 1 Prevalence of hypertension, diabetes mellitus and tobacco use. Table 2 Dental implant placement area. 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 Variable Hypertension Diabetes mellitus Smoking habit None Total Mandible n (%) 13 (37.15) 13 (37.15) 26 (74.30) Table 1 Table 2 n (%) 3 (15.8) 2 (10.5) 5 (26.3) 9 (47.4) 19 (100.0) Maxilla n (%) 5 (14.30) 4 (11.40) 9 (25.70) Region Anterior Posterior Total The success and survival rates of the implants were analyzed based on the criteria of the Pisa Consensus Conference, according to the follow- ing clinical parameters: pain (absent, absent in function, sensitivity in function, pain in function), mobility (present or absent), probing depth (PD), bleeding on probing (BOP), exudate (absent, with exudate history, with uncontrolled exudate) and radiographic bone loss. The PD and BOP mea- surements were taken at four aspects of each implant: mesial (M), distal (D), buccal (B) and lingual/palatal (L/P). For the assessment of radiographic bone loss, a periapical radiograph using the bisecting angle technique was performed at the time of patient recall. The radiographs were digitalized and analyzed using the Image Tool software (Trophy-Radiologie, Vincennes, France) to verify and determine the resulting linear dis- tance between the implant shoulder and bone crest. The average values for the M and D as- pects were used as a single measurement for each implant. From this analysis, the implants were divided into the following categories: bone loss of less than 2 mm; bone loss of be- tween 2 and 4 mm; bone loss of more than 4 mm, but less than half of the implant body; and bone loss greater than half of the length of the implant. According to these criteria, the implants were classified as successful, having satisfactory survival, having impaired survival or failed. Biological and prosthetic complications, such as periimplant mucositis, periimplantitis, abscesses or fistulas, or any mechanical and prosthetic complications, such as fracture of the implant and/or of any prosthetic compo- nent, were also evaluated. Patients with BOP or positive suppuration, a PD of greater than 5 mm and radiographic bone loss were diag- nosed as having periimplantitis.10 Results The study included 35 implants placed in 19 pa- tients, six men and 13 women, with the following age distribution: two patients aged between 30 and 39, six patients between 40 and 49, seven patients between 50 and 59, three patients be- tween 60 and 69, and one patient between 70 and 79. The prevalence of systemic disease and a smoking habit was assessed by interview and the results are presented in Table 1. 26 Volume 3 | Issue 2/2017 Journal of Oral Science & Rehabilitation