ArticleJournal of clinical and experimental dentistry2024
Survival analysis of dental implants placed in a private practice. A multicenter prospective cohort study.
Article in Journal of clinical and experimental dentistry, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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.
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.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: This prospective cohort study aimed to assess the predictability and survival rates of dental implant treatment in edentulous patients while identifying potential factors contributing to implant failure. Material and Methods: A total of 80 outpatients, receiving 166 dental implants between September 2015 and November 2017 in two private dental clinics, were included in this study. Patient and implant characteristics, surgical procedures, primary stability, prosthetic rehabilitation, failure analysis, and survival rates were analyzed. Results: The majority of patients (53.75%) received a single implant for treating single-gap edentulism, with 6.25% requiring implants for fully edentulous jaws. Most implants (66.87%) were Avinent Ocean IC implants with specific design features. Surgical placement primarily occurred in healed pristine bone (78.31%), immediate implants in fresh extraction sockets (19.88%), and bone regeneration was simultaneous in 15.66% of cases. While 54.82% of implants achieved primary stability over 35Ncm, none exceeded 45Ncm, and only 4.82% failed to attain primary stability. Prosthetic rehabilitation revealed that 13.25% received immediate loading prostheses. During follow-up, four implants failed, resulting in a 2.41% failure rate, with bruxism (HR: 96.62; Conclusions: This study demonstrates the high predictability and survival rates of dental implant treatment in edentulous patients, consistent with established standards. Factors such as bruxism and primary stability may impact early implant failure. Dental implants remain a reliable treatment option, boasting a 97.44% cumulative survival rate at 24 months. Further research is required to explore implant failure indicators and multifactorial influences.
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
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.