Please activate JavaScript!
Please install Adobe Flash Player, click here for download
ePaper created 2017-09-29, 09:24:58 | version 1.38.0
10 Ricerca & Clinica f< pagina 9 Around the six implants classified as having impaired survival, a PD of greater than 4 mm was observed. Of all of the implants evalua- ted, four presented with periimplant mu- cositis (11.4%) and two with periimplantitis (5.7%), diagnosed by the presence of BOP or suppuration and radiographic bone loss. Re- garding the definitive rehabilitation, 17 pro- stheses were classified as successful, while prosthetic complications were observed in eight implants (splinter or porcelain fractu- re, fracture of the prosthetic components, failure of the cement or screw loosing), resul- ting in a 68% success rate and a 32% survival rate of the prosthetic restorations (Fig. 2). Discussion This study aimed to evaluate the success, survival and failure rates of implants based on the implant quality of health scale de- veloped at the Pisa Consensus Conference. The success category describes optimal conditions; the survival category descri- bes functional implants, but not in an ideal condition, and is divided into sati- sfactory and impaired survival; and the failure category includes implants that should or could be removed. 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 associated with an improper prosthetic component or with pressure on the tissue owing to seating of the prosthesis, suggesting that the prosthetic component can contribute to the instability of the implant.9 BOP was found in eight implants and increased PD (> 4 mm) in five implants. The occurrence of BOP after insertion of a probe with light pressure reveals the pre- sence of an inflammatory lesion in the gingiva around the tooth. With respect to the mucosa around the im- plant, the accuracy of the diagnostic role of BOP seems to be greater than around natural teeth11. In the present study, 58% of the periimplant tissue was considered healthy. Figure 1. Distribution of the implants according to the implant quality of health scale. Implant Tribune Italian Edition - Settembre 2017 Success 74% Impaird survivaf 26% Success 68% Survivaf 32% f> pagina 11 Figure 2. Distribution of the prosthetic rehabilitation according to the quality. 1. Pimentel GH, Martins LD, Ramos MB, Lorenzoni FC, Queiroz AC. Perda óssea Peri-implantar e dife- rentes sistemas de implantes [Peri-implant bone loss and different implant systems]. g Innov Implant J Biomater Esthet. 2010; 5(2):75–81. Italian. 2. Pietrokovski J. The bony residual ridge in man. g J Prosthet Dent. 1975 Oct;34(4):456–62. 3. Adell R, Lekholm U, Rockler B, Brånemark PI. A 15-year study of osseointegrated implants in the tre- atment of the edentulous jaw. g Int J Oral Surg. 1981 Dec;10(6):387–416. 4. Wyatt CC, Zarb GA. Bone level changes proximal to oral implants supporting fixed partial prostheses. g Clin Oral Implants Res. 2002 Apr;13(2):162–8. 5. Albrektsson T, Zarb G, Worthington P, Eriksson AR. The long-term efficacy of currently used den- tal implants: a review and proposed criteria of success. g Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 1986 Sum- mer;1(1):11–25. 6. Ten Bruggenkate C, van der Kwast WA, Oosterbeek HS. Success criteria in oral implantology. A review of the literature. g Int J Oral Implantol. 1990;7(1):45–51. 7. Misch CE. Implant success or failure: clinical assessment in implant dentistry. g In: Misch CE, editor. Contemporary implant dentistry. St Louis, MO: Mosby; 1993. p. 33–66. 8. Misch CE. The implant quality scale: a clinical assessment of the health–disease continuum. g Oral Health. 1998 Jul;88(7):15–20, 23–6; quiz 25–6. 9. Misch CE, Perel ML, Wang HL, Sammartino G, Galindo-Moreno P, Trisi P, Steigmann M, Rebaudi A, Palti A, Pikos MA, Schwartz-Arad D, Choukroun J, Gutierrez-Perez JL, Marenzi G, Valavanis DK. Implant success, survival, and failure: the International Congress of Oral Implantologists (ICOI) Pisa Consensus Conference. g Implant Dent. 2008 Mar;17(1):5–15. 10. Lindhe J, Meyle J; Group D of European Workshop on Periodontology. Peri-implant diseases: consensus report of the Sixth European Workshop on Periodontology. g J Clin Periodontol. 2008 Sep;35(8 Sup- pl):282–5. 11. Luterbacher S, Mayfield L, Brägger U, Lang NP. Diagnostic characteristics of clinical and microbio- logical tests for monitoring periodontal and peri-implant mucosal tissue conditions during supportive periodontal therapy (SPT). g Clin Oral Implants Res. 2000 Dec;11(6):521–9. 12. Sussman HI. Endodontic pathology leading to implant failure—a case report. g J Oral Implantol. 1997;23(3):112–5; discussion 115–6. 13. Zarb GA, Schmitt A. Implant therapy alternatives for geriatric edentulous patients. g Gerodontology. 1993 Jul;10(1):28–32. References 14. Bryant SR, Zarb GA. Osseointegration of oral implants in older and younger adults. g Int J Oral Maxil- lofac Implants. 1998 Jul-Aug;13(4):492–9. 15. Mombelli A, Cionca N. Systemic diseases affecting osseointegration therapy. g Clin Oral Implants Res. 2006 Oct;17 Suppl 2:97–103. 16. Galindo-Moreno P, Fauri M, Avila-Ortiz G, Fernandez-Barbero JE, Cabrera-Leon A, Sanchez-Fernandez E. Inf luence of alcohol and tobacco habits on peri-implant marginal bone loss: a prospective study. g Clin Oral Implants Res. 2005 Oct;16(5):579–86. 17. Sánchez-Pérez A, Moya-Villaescusa MJ, Caffesse RG. Tobacco as a risk factor for survival of dental im- plants. g J Periodontol. 2007 Feb;78(2):351–9. 18. Francsson C, Wennstrom J, Berglundh T. Clinical characteristics at implants with a history of progres- sive bone loss. g Clin Oral Implants Res. 2008 Feb;19(2):142–7. 19. Strietzel FP, Reichart PA, Kale A, Kulkarni M, Wegner B, Kuchler I. Smoking interferes with the pro- gnosis of dental implant treatment: a systematic review and meta-analysis. g J Clin Periodontol. 2007 Jun;34(6):523–44. 20. Adell R, Eriksson B, Lekholm U, Brånemark PI, Jemt T. Long-term follow-up study of osseointegrated implants in the treatment of totally edentulous jaws. g Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 1990 Win- ter;5(4):347–59. 21. Kim YK, Kim SG, Kim JH, Yi YJ, Yun PY. Prospective study of tapered resorbable blasting media sur- face implant stability in the maxillary posterior area. g Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol. 2012 Jul;114(1):e19–24. 22. Ferrigno N, Laureti M, Fanali S, Grippaudo G. A long-term follow-up study of non-submerged ITI im- plants in the treatment of totally edentulous jaws. Part I: ten-year life table analysis of a prospective multicenter study with 1286 implants. g Clin Oral Implants Res. 2002 Jun;13(3):260–73. 23. Telleman G, Meijer HJ, Raghoebar GM. Long-term evaluation of hollow screw and hollow cylinder den- tal implants: clinical and radiographic results after 10 years. g J Periodontol. 2006 Feb;77(2):203–10. 24. Oppermann RV, Gomes SC, Fiorini T. Epidemiologia e fatores de risco para as doenças periimplantares [Epidemiology and risk factors for peri-implant diseases]. Portuguese. g Periodontia. 2008 Dec;18(4):14– 21. 25. Jeong SM, Choi BH, Kim J, Xuan F, Lee DH, Mo DY, Lee CU, Wonju, Korea. A 1-year prospective clinical study of soft tissue conditions and marginal bone changes around dental implants after f lapless implant surgery. g Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod. 2011 Jan;111(1):41–6.