Implant-Supported Prosthesis Is a Viable Treatment Alternative for American Society of Anesthesiology Physical Status 3 Individuals-A Retrospective Cohort Study.

backgroundWithin medicine, it is common to use risk prediction tools towards clinical decision making. One of the most widely accepted assessment tools is the American Society of Anesthesiologists Physical Status (ASA PS) classification. Oral and maxillofacial procedures performed in an ambulatory setting would be considered low risk for the procedure itself. However, little is known concerning the impact of ASA PS on surgical outcomes. The aim of the present research was to evaluate the effect of ASA PS classification on early implant failure (EIF).

methodsRetrospective cohort study based on dental records. All treatments were performed by experienced oral and maxillofacial surgeons and experienced prosthodontists. INCLUSION CRITERIA: ASA physical status 1,2,3, consecutive individuals. Variables included the following: age, gender, implant location, implant length, implant width, smoking, and early implant failure.

resultsUnivariate tests at the patient level showed no statistically difference between the different classifications of ASA PS (1,2,3). Multivariate model using logistic regression at individual level showed that two factors were found to be associated with an increased risk for EIF-augmented bone and implant brand.

conclusionsASA PS 3 is not a contraindication for implant-supported prostheses. EIF in ASA PS 3 is not significantly different from ASA PS 1,2. In contrast, factors such as bone augmentation and implant brand might be significant risk factors for EIF, regardless of ASA PS.