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 Table 3 Table 4 Diameter Narrow (< 4.0) Regular (4.0–4.8) Total Variable Absent Varying Presence Height Short (< 10) Regular (10–12) Long (> 12) n (%) 3 (8.6) 2 (5.7) 5 (14.3) Pain n 34 1 0 n (%) 15 (42.9) 4 (11.4) 19 (54.3) n (%) 10 (28.6) 1 (2.8) 11 (31.4) Exudate Mobility n 33 0 2 n 35 0 0 Table 3 Implant distribution according to diameter and height (mm). Table 4 Presence of clinical signs during follow-up. The implants were classified according to the placement area: mandible and maxilla and ante- rior and posterior (Table 2). Three patients were rehabilitated with full-arch fixed prostheses sup- ported by osseointegrated implants, 20 received single prostheses and two received an overden- ture. Concerning the implant diameter, 80% of the implants were classified as narrow and 20% as regular (Table 3). Regarding the implant height, 14.28% of the implants were classified as short, 54.28% as regular and 31.46% as long (Table 3). A higher frequency of implants of 11 mm in height and less than 4 mm in diameter was observed. Regarding the presence of clinical signs as- sociated with the implants, such as pain, exudate and mobility, 18 patients (who received 34 im- plants) reported no pain. The presence of pain in function occurred in only one implant and the presence of exudate in two implants (Table 4). In general, PDs of less than 4 mm were ob- served in most cases. Only one implant showed a PD of 5 mm at the M aspect, while a PD of 6 mm and BP were observed at one implant at the L/P aspect and at three implants at the D and B aspects. BOP was present at five im- plants at the M, B and L/P aspects, and at three implants at the D aspect (Table 5). Four implants could not be evaluated owing to the presence of a protocol-type prosthesis. Twenty-six of the 35 implants were evalu- ated in periapical radiographs by measuring the linear distance between the implant shoulder and bone crest. Only 17.1% of the implants showed bone loss of between 2 and 4 mm, while the remaining implants presented with less than 2 mm (Table 6). Analyzing all of the parameters established a success rate of 74% (20 implants), while 26% of the implants (six implants) were classified as having impaired survival (Fig. 1). The implants that had impaired survival showed different characteristics regarding location, size and PD. Regarding the height of these implants, three were longer than 12 mm, two were 10–12 mm in height and one less than 10 mm in height. Concerning the diameter, four of these implants were narrow and two were regular. Around the six implants classified as having impaired sur- vival, a PD of greater than 4 mm was observed. Of all of the implants evaluated, four presented with periimplant mucositis (11.4%) and two with periimplantitis (5.7%), diagnosed by the pres- Journal of Oral Science & Rehabilitation Volume 3 | Issue 2/2017 27