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 M n (%) Aspect D n (%) B n (%) Variable PD ≤ 4 mm 30 (96.8) 28 (90.3) 28 (90.3) > 4–< 6 mm BOP ≥ 6 mm Total Present Absent Total 1 (3.2) 0 (0.0) 0 (0.0) 3 (9.7) 0 (0.0) 3 (9.7) 31 (100.0) 31 (100.0) 31 (100.0) 5 (16.1) 26 (83.9) 3 (9.7) 28 (90.3) 5 (16.1) 26 (83.9) 31(100.0) 31(100.0) 31(100.0) PD = Probing depth; BOP = Bleeding on probing; M = Mesial; D = Distal; B = Buccal; L/P = Lingual/palatal. L/P n (%) 30 (96.8) 0 (0.0) 1 (3.2) 31 (100.0) 5 (16.1) 26 (83.9) 31 (100.0) Table 5 Table 6 Table 5 Probing depth and bleeding according to aspect during follow-up. Table 6 Quantity (mm) of bone loss on radiograph during follow-up. Quantity < 2 mm 2–4 mm > 4 mm > ½ of implant length Total n (%) 20 (76.9) 6 (23.1) 0 (0.0) 0 (0.0) 26 (100.0) ence of BOP or suppuration and radiographic bone loss. Regarding the definitive rehabilitation, 17 prostheses were classified as successful, while prosthetic complications were observed in eight implants (splinter or porcelain fracture, fracture of the prosthetic components, failure of the cement or screw loosing), resulting in a 68% success rate and a 32% survival rate of the pros- thetic restorations (Fig. 2). Discussion This study aimed to evaluate the success, surviv- al and failure rates of implants based on the im- plant quality of health scale developed at the Pisa Consensus Conference. The success category describes optimal conditions; the survival cate- gory describes functional implants, but not in an ideal condition, and is divided into satisfactory and impaired survival; and the failure category includes implants that should or could be re- moved. In this study, one patient reported pain on function and implant mobility was observed in a second one. In both cases, the factor that caused such impairment was the presence of an unsatisfactory prosthesis. Misch et al. state that pain should not be associated with the implant after healing, and when it is observed, it is as- sociated with an improper prosthetic compo- nent or with pressure on the tissue owing to seating of the prosthesis, suggesting that the prosthetic component can contribute to the in- stability of the implant.9 28 Volume 3 | Issue 2/2017 Journal of Oral Science & Rehabilitation