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 of 74% and 100%, respectively, were observed. It is important to highlight that only patients who had undergone definitive prosthetic reha- bilitation were evaluated and maybe that is why no failure was observed, since Jeong et al. re- ported that failure usually occurs before seating of the definitive prosthesis.25 Conclusion 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 characteristics or area in which the implant was placed. This study can be considered preliminary and provides the basis for the design of further studies. Author contributions ABA, UDR and LPM made substantial contribu- tions to conception and design, acquisition of data, and analysis and interpretation of data, and wrote substantial parts of the manuscript. ABA, LPM and UDR were involved in drafting the man- uscript, participated in the data analysis and in- terpretation of the results, and revised critically for important intellectual content. Acknowledgments This study was supported by a grant (number 2012/25447-5) from the São Paulo Research Foundation. that there is no obvious difference in the quality of periimplant tissue,15 and this was observed in our study too, since implants in patients with diabetes were successful. However, in smoking patients, there is evidence that the habit has an important influence on the periimplant tissue, regarding both the healing after implant place- ment and the implants’ long-term prognosis.16–19 There is a higher risk of inflammation and periimplant bone loss in smokers compared with nonsmokers.16–19 In our study, the implants placed in smokers did not fail, but 60% of them had bone loss of 2–4 mm, which can be seen as a dubious or even unfavorable prognosis, con- sidering the follow-up period after implant placement. The literature shows a lower success rate of implants placed in the maxilla compared with the mandible,20 a fact that is related to the lower density of the maxillary bone. The residual bone height becomes insufficient owing to the loss of alveolar bone. However, the molar area in both the maxilla and mandible displays substantial bone deficiency owing to increased occlusal forces, increasing the failure rate of implants in this area.20 In Type IV bone, the cortical bone is very thin, and the lack of dense bone makes it difficult to achieve adequate stability. The man- dibular retromolar area and the maxillary molar region are formed by low-quality bone, while implants placed in the anterior mandible area have high success rates owing to increased cor- tical bone. In this study, there was no difference between implants placed in different regions of the jaws regarding their success or survival, cor- roborating the findings of Kim et al.21 It is nec- essary to consider that the study was conduct- ed with a small number of patients and that probably in a larger sample these differences would be evident. In our study, various implant systems were analyzed without differences in the success rate or acceptable survival rate, corroborating the findings of Ferrigno et al.22 and Telleman et al.,23 who found similar results for the survival of dif- ferent types of implant designs. In a literature review, Opperman et al. also concluded that, regarding implant survival, there are no types, surfaces or implant systems that present clear advantages over others.24 In summary, in the present study, 74% of the implants examined were classified as success- ful, with excellent prognoses, while 26% of the implants were classified as having impaired survival. Therefore, success and survival rates 30 Volume 3 | Issue 2/2017 Journal of Oral Science & Rehabilitation