Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31529723›Full record

ArticleJournal of clinical periodontology2019

How old is old for implant therapy in terms of early implant losses?

Kristina Bertl, Maria Ebner, Marianne Knibbe, Nikolaos Pandis, Ulrike Kuchler, Christian Ulm, Andreas Stavropoulos

Registry-linked trialAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of clinical periodontology, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT05219305 (Autogenous Mineralized Dentin Graft Compared to Partial Demineralized Tooth Graft and to Freeze-Dried Bone Allograft in Dental Implant Placement), which is not on this map. Cited by 17 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
17citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

NCT05219305 naactive not recruitingnot on this mapstarted 2022, after this paper: background citation

Autogenous Mineralized Dentin Graft Compared to Partial Demineralized Tooth Graft and to Freeze-Dried Bone Allograft in Dental Implant Placement

TypeinterventionalSponsorUniversity of OklahomaRan2022 to 2024Enrolled36ConditionsEdentulous Alveolar RidgeArmsDental Implant Placement
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

17 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Review
  9. Review
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors.

Kristina BertlDepartment of Periodontology, Faculty of Odontology, University of Malmö, Malmö, Sweden.ORCID 0000-0002-8279-7943
Maria EbnerDivision of Oral Surgery, University Clinic of Dentistry, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria.
Marianne KnibbeDivision of Oral Surgery, University Clinic of Dentistry, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria.
Nikolaos PandisDepartment of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics, School of Dental Medicine, University of Bern, Bern, Switzerland.
Ulrike KuchlerDivision of Oral Surgery, University Clinic of Dentistry, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria.
Christian UlmDivision of Oral Surgery, University Clinic of Dentistry, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria.
Andreas StavropoulosDepartment of Periodontology, Faculty of Odontology, University of Malmö, Malmö, Sweden.ORCID 0000-0001-8161-3754

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesTo assess, retrospectively, whether older age has an impact on implant osseointegration when compared with younger age.

methodsAll patients ≥65 years old at implant installation, in an university setting over a time-period of 11.5 years, with complete anamnestic data and follow-up until prosthetic restoration were included, and any early implant loss (EIL; i.e. lack of osseointegration prior to or at the time-point of prosthetic restoration) was recorded. Further, one implant, from each of the elderly patients, was attempted matched to one implant in a younger patient (35 to <55 years old at implant installation) from the same clinic based on (a) gender, (b) implant region, (c) smoking status and (d) bone grafting prior to/simultaneously with implant installation. The potential impact of various local and systemic factors on EIL in the entire elderly population, and in the matched elderly and younger patient group was statistically assessed.

resultsFour hundred forty-four patients ≥65 years old (range 65.1-91.3; 56.8% female) receiving 1,517 implants were identified; 10 patients had one EIL each (implant/patient level: 0.66/2.25%). Splitting this patient cohort additionally into four age groups [65-69.9 (n = 213), 70-74.9 (n = 111), 75-79.9 (n = 80) and ≥80 (n = 40)], EIL was on the implant level 0.41, 0.83, 0.34 and 2.26%, respectively, (p = .102) and on the patient level 1.41, 2.70, 1.25 and 7.50%, respectively, (p = .104); multilevel analysis showed weak evidence of association of increasing age with higher EIL rate (p = .090). Matching was possible in 347 cases, and 5 (1.44%) and 9 (2.59%) EIL in the elderly and younger patients, respectively, were observed (p = .280). EIL could not be associated with any systemic condition or medication intake.

conclusionsElderly patients ≥65 years old presented a similarly low EIL rate as younger patients 35 to <55 years old, while patients ≥80 years old may have a slight tendency for a higher EIL rate. Hence, ageing does not seem to compromise osseointegration, and if at all, then only slightly and at a later stage of life.

Indexed as

Dental Implantation, EndosseousDental ImplantsAgedAged, 80 and overBone TransplantationDental Restoration FailureFemaleFollow-Up StudiesHumansMaleMiddle AgedOsseointegrationRetrospective StudiesDental Implantsdental implantearly implant losselderly populationosseointegration

Identifiers

PMID31529723
PMCPMC6899847

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.