Premium
Retrospective clinical analysis of risk factors associated with failed short implants
Author(s) -
Chen Li,
Yang Tao,
Yang Guangwen,
Zhou Na,
Dong Heng,
Mou Yongbin
Publication year - 2020
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.12879
Subject(s) - medicine , dentistry , implant , retrospective cohort study , logistic regression , proportional hazards model , molar , surgery
Background With advanced technology, short implants are more commonly used and have proven to have a relatively reliable curable efficacy. A consensus has not been reached regarding potential risk factors related to the loss of short implants. Purpose This large‐sample retrospective study concentrated not only on patient characteristics and medical procedures but also on the features of implants in order to uncover the risk factors associated with short implants. Methods Between 2014 and 2017, a total of 7001 implants were inserted at Nanjing Stomatological Hospital, Medical School of Nanjing University. Among the all, 1236 short implants were included after being evaluated according to the inclusion and exclusion criteria. In organizing the detailed information, seven variables including bone grafting procedure, age, gender, diameter of the implant, implant position, surface treatment, and definitive restorations were taken into consideration. The χ 2 test, Kaplan‐Meier test, logistic regression, and multifactorial Cox regression analysis were employed to explore the risk factors. Results The cumulative survival rate of short implants was 96.36%, slightly lower than that of the standard implants (98.16%, P < .001). Most of the short implants (84.44%) were lost at the early stage, mainly because of infection. Based on the results, male gender, implants treated by titanium anodizing and single‐crown restoration increased the loss rate of short implants. Comparison of the short implants inserted into the maxillary and mandibular posterior area alone showed that the maxillary molar area was a risk factor for prognosis. Conclusions Male gender, TA surface treatment, and the presence of a single crown were associated with an increasing rate of short implants loss. Examination of the implant location focused on the posterior area revealed the maxillary posterior area to be a risk factor.