Premium
Clinical and Radiological Long‐Term Outcome of a Tapered Implant System with Special Emphasis on the Influence of Augmentation Procedures
Author(s) -
Schiegnitz Eik,
AlNawas Bilal,
Tegner Alexander,
Sagheb Keyvan,
Berres Manfred,
Kämmerer Peer W,
Wagner Wilfried
Publication year - 2016
Publication title -
clinical implant dentistry and related research
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 1.338
H-Index - 85
eISSN - 1708-8208
pISSN - 1523-0899
DOI - 10.1111/cid.12338
Subject(s) - medicine , implant , dentistry , radiological weapon , survival rate , alveolar ridge , maxillary sinus , soft tissue , surgery , sinus (botany) , botany , biology , genus
Background and Purpose Tapered implant designs aim to improve primary stability and implant survival in soft bone. However, respective clinical long‐term data are scarce. Therefore, a clinical and radiological evaluation of the long‐term success of a transgingival‐supracrestal inserted tapered implant system with special emphasis on the influence of augmentation procedures was conducted. Material and Methods In a retrospective study design, all in the D epartment of O ral and M axillofacial S urgery of the U niversity M edical C entre, M ainz, G ermany, between M ay 2002 and M arch 2012, placed tapered implants ( S traumann TE ®, B asel, S witzerland) were analyzed. In this time period, a total of one hundred ninety‐seven tapered implants were inserted in 90 patients. For patients available for clinical recall, success criteria according to Albrektsson and Buser were evaluated. Results The in situ rate was 96.3% after an average time in situ of 62 ± 31 months. In one hundred twenty‐seven sites, bone augmentation procedures were performed. Hereof, 96 sites were sinus augmentation procedures and 31 sites were alveolar ridge augmentations. For patients with sinus augmentation procedures, implant survival was 97.9% and for patients with alveolar ridge augmentations, implant survival was 93.5% after 5 years, indicating a higher implant survival for sinus augmentation, however not statistically different ( p = .194). Implant diameter and timing of implant placement had no significant impact on implant survival ( p > .05). Mean marginal bone loss was −0.50 ± 1.54 mm for patients receiving maxillary sinus augmentation and −1.16 ± 1.13 mm for patients with alveolar ridge augmentations, indicating a lower marginal bone loss in patients receiving maxillary sinus augmentation ( p = .046). Implant success rates ranged between 88% and 92% after a mean follow‐up of 6 years. Conclusions Within the limits of the retrospective character of this study, the tapered soft tissue level implant showed especially in maxillary sinus augmentation promising long‐term survival and success rates and a low peri‐implant bone resorption compared with the literature.