Implant and implant restoration trends among adults 50 years and older in the United States, National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey 1999-2020.

BACKGROUND: Dental implants are an important treatment option in contemporary clinical dentistry. The objective of this study was to determine trends in the prevalence of dental implants and implant-supported restorations in adults 50 years and older across demographic groups over a 20-year period. METHODS: The authors used data from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey collected during 1999-2004, 2009-2014, and 2015-2020 for analyses. The authors used data from 2011 through 2020 to analyze implant-supported restoration trends. Participants 50 years or older were included in the study analytic sample. The primary outcome was the presence of dental implants and implant-supported restorations. Covariates assessed included dentition status, age, sex, race and ethnicity, education, poverty status, and smoking status. The authors used population estimates, weighted percentages, SEs, and logistic regression models for study analyses. RESULTS: There was a total of 17,114 adults from 1999 through 2020 and 11,292 adults from 2011 through 2020 meeting the inclusion criteria. The prevalence (SE) of at least 1 dental implant increased over time, from 1.3% (0.22%) in 1999-2004 to 8.4% (0.68%) in 2015-2020. In general, those who were non-Hispanic Black, experiencing poverty, and had less than a college education were less likely to have implants than their counterparts. CONCLUSIONS: Although the overall prevalence of implants has increased over time, disparities in prevalence were observed among certain demographic groups. PRACTICAL IMPLICATIONS: The use of dental implants in clinical dentistry has increased over time. Future research and policy initiatives could help address disparities in implant prevalence.

Dental Implants in the Elderly Population: A Long-Term Follow-up.

PURPOSE: The objectives of this study were to evaluate implant survival and success in the elderly population and to assess indicators and risk factors for success or failure of dental implants in older adults (aged 60 years and older). MATERIALS AND METHODS: This historical prospective study was developed from a cohort of patients born prior to 1950 who received dental implants in a single private dental office. Implant survival and marginal bone levels were recorded and analyzed with regard to different patient- and implant-related factors. RESULTS: The study examined 245 patient charts and 1,256 implants from one dental clinic. The mean age at the time of implant placement was 62.18 ± 8.6 years. Smoking was reported by 9.4% of the cohort studied. The overall survival rate of the implants was 92.9%; 7.1% of the implants had failed. Marginal bone loss depicted by exposed threads was evident in 23.3% of the implants. Presenting with generalized periodontal disease and/or severe periodontal disease negatively influenced the survival probability of the implant. Implants placed in areas where bone augmentation was performed prior to or during implant surgery did not have the same longevity compared with those that did not have augmentation prior to implantation. CONCLUSION: The overall findings concluded that implants can be successfully placed in older adults. A variety of factors are involved in the long-term success of the implant, and special consideration should be taken prior to placing implants in older adults to limit the influence of those risk factors.

Long-term Outcomes of Immediate Loading of Short Implants: A Controlled Retrospective Cohort Study.

PURPOSE: Short implants (≤ 8.5 mm in length) have presented predictable outcomes. However, there is paucity in the long-term evaluation of immediate loading of short implants. The objective of this study was to assess the effect of the immediate loading of short implants on treatment outcomes. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Patients having short implants inserted before December 2010 that were immediately loaded were selected. A database was then created to include the patient's data as well as implant- and prostheses-related outcomes. Long implants inserted at the same surgery and immediately loaded by the same prosthesis formed the control group. The proximal bone loss and the survival rates of implants and prostheses were assessed. RESULTS: Forty-nine short and 38 long implants were placed in 30 patients. The mean follow-up time was 5.2 ± 0.8 years after loading, and three implants (two short and one long) failed. The differences in marginal bone loss and implant survival between short and long implants were not statistically significant. Three prosthetic complications occurred. Two prostheses failed, and the survival rate was 95.8%. CONCLUSION: The immediate loading of short implants is not a risk factor for treatment success. This could be related to the good bone quality and the achievement of adequate primary stability.

Peri-implant bone loss around platform-switched Morse taper connection implants: a prospective 60-month follow-up study.

The aim of this study was to measure the crestal bone level changes at 60 months of follow-up and to evaluate the influence of biologically relevant, anatomical, and implant-related variables. A prospective study design was used. STROBE guidelines were followed. A total of 576 implants were inserted in 270 patients needing an implant-supported, partial, fixed dental prosthesis or a single crown. Standardized peri-apical radiographs were obtained at 2 months (time of implant-abutment connection and prosthetic loading) and 60 months of follow-up. Descriptive statistics were used and inter- and intra-examiner reliability determined. A mixed model was used to evaluate the predictor variables. The correlation among multiple implants inserted in a single patient was considered. Significance was assessed using the type 3 test. Sensitivity analyses, least-squares means analyses, t-tests, and χ2 tests were also conducted. The statistical analysis was performed at the implant level; P<0.05 indicated statistical significance. At the 60-month follow-up, the mean marginal bone remodelling was -0.59±1.34mm (range -5.70 to 3.65mm). Marginal bone loss was significantly influenced by implant depth, implant location, and the interactions implant depth×jaw, implant location×timing of implant placement, and jaw×implant diameter. At the 60-month follow-up, a low mean marginal bone loss was found, which was significantly higher with subcrestal implants and anterior implants.

Utilização de implante curto associado a micro pilar protético, uma alternativa para não realização de cirurgia de levantamento de seio maxilar ­ relato de caso / The use of short implant associated with micro prosthetic abutment, an alternative for not performing maxillary sinus lifting surgery ­ case report

A reabilitação com implantes tem como desafio as limitações de quantidade e qualidade óssea, sendo necessárias técnicas cirúrgicas de enxerto ósseo, permitindo a instalação dos implantes convencionais. Para pacientes que preferem opções menos complexas e traumáticas, os implantes curtos são uma opção de tratamento menos invasiva e com boa previsibilidade. Porém, para o seu melhor desempenho, princípios biomecânicos devem ser empregados, como utilização de mesa oclusal reduzida, ferulização de implantes, conexão interna do tipo Cone Morse e plataforma Switching. O objetivo desse trabalho foi relatar um caso clínico de uma paciente que descartou a cirurgia de levantamento de seio maxilar, sendo então proposto o tratamento com a utilização de implante curto do tipo Cone Morse, em que foi realizado o planejamento reverso e o uso de princípios biomecânicos.

Rehabilitation with implants is challenged by bone quantity and quality limitations, being necessary surgical techniques for bone grafting that allow conventional implants installation. for patients who prefer less complex and traumatic options, short implants are a less invasive treatment option and has good predictability. however, for best performance, biomechanical principles should be used, such as use of reduced occlusal table, splinting implants, internal connection of the Cone Morse type and Switching platform. The aim of this study was to report a case of a patient who dismissed the maxillary sinus lifting surgery, so the treatment proposed was the use of short implant Cone Morse type, in which reverse planning was done with the use of biomechanics principles.

Effectiveness of Implant Therapy Analyzed in a Swedish Population: Prevalence of Peri-implantitis.

Peri-implantitis is an inflammatory disease affecting soft and hard tissues surrounding dental implants. As the global number of individuals that undergo restorative therapy through dental implants increases, peri-implantitis is considered as a major and growing problem in dentistry. A randomly selected sample of 588 patients who all had received implant-supported therapy 9 y earlier was clinically and radiographically examined. Prevalence of peri-implantitis was assessed and risk indicators were identified by multilevel regression analysis. Forty-five percent of all patients presented with peri-implantitis (bleeding on probing/suppuration and bone loss >0.5 mm). Moderate/severe peri-implantitis (bleeding on probing/suppuration and bone loss >2 mm) was diagnosed in 14.5%. Patients with periodontitis and with ≥4 implants, as well as implants of certain brands and prosthetic therapy delivered by general practitioners, exhibited higher odds ratios for moderate/severe peri-implantitis. Similarly, higher odds ratios were identified for implants installed in the mandible and with crown restoration margins positioned ≤1.5 mm from the crestal bone at baseline. It is suggested that peri-implantitis is a common condition and that several patient- and implant-related factors influence the risk for moderate/severe peri-implantitis (ClinicalTrials.gov NCT01825772).

Survival rates and complication types for single implants provided at the Melbourne Dental School.

BACKGROUND: Single implants and implant-supported single crowns (ISSCs) have become popular treatment modalities for single tooth replacement. Studies have identified high implant survival rates, but also many complications. The aim of this five-year retrospective study was to assess the survival rates, complication types and occurrences for single implants and ISSCs at the Melbourne Dental School (MDS) in Victoria, Australia. METHODS: A search of the Royal Dental Hospital of Melbourne (RDHM) database was conducted for data on all implant treatment and reported complications during the period between 1 January 2005 and 31 December 2009. Complications were categorized into surgical, biological and restorative types. RESULTS: A total of 622 implant fixtures and 444 ISSCs were inserted into 406 patients. Seventeen implants failed during the mean follow-up time of 2.18 years, yielding a 2.7% failure rate and an estimated one- and five-year survival rate of 98.8% and 93.9%, respectively. The cumulative surgical, biological and restorative complication incidences were 11.9%, 17.6% and 14.1%, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: This study confirmed that single tooth replacement using implant therapy within a teaching environment had a high survival rate. However, complications frequently occurred. This article only provides a descriptive analysis. Correlation analysis between variables would provide greater insight into the causes of complications.

Effectiveness of implant therapy analyzed in a Swedish population: early and late implant loss.

Treatment outcomes in implant dentistry have been mainly assessed as implant survival rates in small, selected patient groups of specialist or university clinical settings. This study reports on loss of dental implants assessed in a large and randomly selected patient sample. The results were aimed at representing evaluation of effectiveness of implant dentistry. Using the national data register of the Swedish Social Insurance Agency, 4,716 patients were randomly selected. All had been provided with implant-supported restorative therapy in 2003. Patient files of 2,765 patients (11,311 implants) were collected from more than 800 clinicians. Information on patients, treatment procedures, and outcomes related to the implant-supported restorative therapy was extracted from the files. In total, 596 of the 2,765 subjects, provided with 2,367 implants, attended a clinical examination 9 y after therapy. Implant loss that occurred prior to connection of the supraconstruction was scored as an early implant loss, while later occurring loss was considered late implant loss. Early implant loss occurred in 4.4% of patients (1.4% of implants), while 4.2% of the patients who were examined 9 y after therapy presented with late implant loss (2.0% of implants). Overall, 7.6% of the patients had lost at least 1 implant. Multilevel analysis revealed higher odds ratios for early implant loss among smokers and patients with an initial diagnosis of periodontitis. Implants shorter than 10 mm and representing certain brands also showed higher odds ratios for early implant loss. Implant brand also influenced late implant loss. Implant loss is not an uncommon event, and patient and implant characteristics influence outcomes (ClinicalTrials.gov NCT01825772).

Patient satisfaction concerning implant-supported prostheses: an observational study

The aim of this observational study was to assess the degree of patient satisfaction toward implant-supported prostheses. A questionnaire was used with two scales (one consisting of detailed adjectival and the other of numerical responses) regarding chewing, esthetics, speaking, comfort and overall satisfaction. The scales were administered to a sample of 147 patients treated with implants and prostheses. The data were submitted to the Kappa statistic and the Chi-square test to analyze the association between dependent and independent variables. High degrees of satisfaction (greater than 91%) were found for all categories evaluated, regardless of gender, age, number of implants or type of prosthesis. “Comfort” was associated significantly with the number of implants (p = 0.038), and “speaking” was associated significantly with the type of prosthesis (p = 0.029). Positive agreement was found between the scales for all categories evaluated, without statistically significant differences regarding respondent preference (p = 0.735). Patients treated with implant-supported prostheses were highly satisfied with the treatment.

Respuesta clínica de 100 implantes en carga oclusal inmediata para pacientes parcialmente desdentados: reporte luego de 12 meses de funcionamiento con restauraciones finales / Clinical response of 100 implants with immediate occlusal loading in partially edentulous patients: report over 12-month functioning with final restorations

Evaluar el rendimiento clínico de 100 implantes SEVEN MIS en protocolos de carga inmediata en pacientes parcialmente desdentados, analizando los criterios de éxito a lo largo de 12 meses. Materiales y métodos: En todos los casos se llevó a cabo el mismo protocolo clínico (quirúrgico y protético) de carga oclusal inmediata. Se utilizaron 100 implantes SEVEN MIS cuya longitud y diámetro se determinó en cada caso según la calidad y cantidad ósea en el sitio quirúrgico.Resultados: Ninguno de los pacientes abandonó el estudio. Todos los implantes fueron clínicamente estables y se correspondieron con los criterios de éxito. Conclusión: Los 100 implantes tuvieron una tasa de éxito de 100 por ciento...

Incidence of peri-implant mucositis and peri-implantitis in edentulous patients with an implant-retained mandibular overdenture during a 10-year follow-up period.

OBJECTIVES: The aim of this sub-analysis of two prospective studies was to assess the incidence of peri-implant mucositis and peri-implantitis in fully edentulous patients with an implant-retained mandibular overdenture during a 10-year follow-up period. MATERIAL AND METHODS: One hundred and fifty edentulous patients with two endosseous implants to support a mandibular overdenture were available from two prospective studies. Clinical and radiographic parameters were assessed at 5 and 10 years of functional loading. Incidence of peri-implant mucositis and peri-implantitis were calculated at implant level and patient level following the Consensus of the Seventh European Workshop on Periodontology on peri-implant diseases. RESULTS: Incidence of peri-implant mucositis at patient level was 51.9% after 5 years of evaluation and 57.0% after 10 years. Incidence of peri-implantitis at patient level was 16.9% after 5 years of evaluation and 29.7% after 10 years. CONCLUSION: Peri-implant mucositis and peri-implantitis do occur in totally edentulous patients and incidence numbers are high.

Rendimiento masticatorio en pacientes rehabilitados con prótesis total removible v/s prótesis Ad-Modum Branemark / Masticatory performance in patients rehabilitated by means of removable complete dentures vs. Ad-Modum Branemark prostheses

Propósito: el propósito de este estudio fue evaluar y comparar el rendimiento masticatorio de pacientes desdentados totales rehabilitados mediante (prótesistipo Ad-Modum y/o prótesis removibles convencional. Método: Se evaluaron24 pacientes divididos en 3 grupos de ocho pacientes. Grupo Ipacientes rehabilitados con prótesis Ad-Modum bimaxilar, Grupo IIpacientes rehabilitados con prótesis Ad-Modum inferior y prótesis total removible superior, Grupo III pacientes rehabilitados con prótesis total removible bimaxilar. Se solicitó a cadapaciente realizar 20 golpes masticatorios a una pastilla de silicona previamente estandarizada, a la muestra obtenida se le realizó tamizado múltiple y los resultados fueron procesados con la fórmula de obtención de rendimiento masticatorio propuesta por el protocolo de Edlund y Lamm en 1980. Resultados: Lospromedios de rendimiento masticatorio fueron: Grupo I(15,6 por ciento±3,4), Grupo II (4,3 por ciento±4,6), Grupo III (0,3 por ciento±0,7). Mediante test de Tukey se demostró que existendiferencias significativas entre el grupo I y II, pero no entre los Grupos II yIII. Conclusiones: El tratamiento con prótesis Ad-Modum bimaxilar logró elmejor rendimiento masticatorio entre los 3 tratamientos rehabilitadores evaluados, el tratamiento con prótesis total removible superior y Ad-Modum inferior fue más exitoso en términos de rendimiento masticatorio que el grupo rehabilitado con prótesis total removible bimaxilar. Los tratamientos con prótesis removible total convencional, no otorgan al paciente una óptima función masticatoria

The influence of rehabilitation characteristics in the incidence of peri-implant pathology: a case-control study.

PURPOSE: To investigate the influence of rehabilitation characteristics in the incidence of peri-implant pathology (P-iP). MATERIALS AND METHODS: A total of 1350 patients (270 with P-iP matched for age, gender, and time of follow-up with 1080 controls without P-iP) rehabilitated with dental implants were included. The effect of the independent variables [Implant length in millimeters (IL); implant diameter in millimeters; implant surface (IS); presence of cantilevers; implant:crown ratio (ICR), type of abutment (TA); abutment height; fracture of prosthetic components (FPCs); type of prosthetic reconstruction (TPR); type of material used in the prosthesis (TMUP); loosening of prosthetic components (LPCs); and passive misfit (PM) diagnosed within the previous year] was evaluated through bivariate analysis (chi-square), with level of significance of 5%. Crude odds ratios (OR) with 95% confidence intervals and the attributable fraction (AF) were calculated for the independent variables individually identified as factors associated with the incidence of peri-implant pathology. RESULTS: The following variables were identified as risk factors: machined IS (p = 0.015; OR = 1.46), 17° TA (p = 0.000; OR = 3.06), completely edentulous TPR (p = 0.000; OR = 2.49), TMUP (p = 0.000; metal-acrylic OR = 2.29; acrylic OR = 4.90; metal-ceramic OR = 8.43), 1:1 ICR (p = 0.002; OR = 1.54), FPC (p = 0.000; OR = 3.01), LPC (p = 0.000; OR = 4.15), and PM (p = 0.002; OR = 20.36). The attributable fraction rendered the following theoretical potential reductions in the cases if the exposure to the variables was removed: IS (31.5%), TA (67.3%), TMUP (5.4% to 73.3%), ICR (35%), FPC (66.8%), LPC (73.8%), and PM (95.1%). CONCLUSIONS: Within the limitations of this study, machined implant surfaces, 17° abutments, completely edentulous reconstructions, the type of metal used in the prosthesis, 1:1 implant:crown ratio, fracture of prosthetic components, loosening of prosthetic components, and passive misfit emerged as risk factors for the incidence of P-iP. Eliminating the exposure to these variables would, in theory, result in a significant reduction in the incidence of P-iP.

Retrospective multicenter study of 230 6-mm SLA-surfaced implants with 1- to 6-year follow-up.

PURPOSE: Using short implants poses a challenge in implant surgery. Implant surfaces have evolved, making it possible to improve the success of short implants substantially. However, there is still little information about the long-term predictability achieved with short, rough-surfaced implants. The objective of this study was to evaluate the long-term survival rate of 6-mm rough implants. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A retrospective multicenter analysis of the survival of short 6-mm SLA-surfaced implants was conducted. A total of 230 implants placed in 159 patients were included. The follow-up time ranged between 1 and 6 years. RESULTS: Seven of the 230 implants failed, which gives a cumulative survival rate of 96.4%. Two hundred and fourteen implants were placed in the mandible (93.1%), as opposed to 16 placed in the maxilla (6.9%). Five implants failed during the osseointegration period, and two failed after receiving the prosthetic load. No statistically significant differences were found (P < .44). Of the loaded implants, 209 were splinted to other implants, as opposed to 14 that were not. One implant failed in each group, resulting in a 99.5% for the splinted implants and 92.9% for the unsplinted implants. No statistically significant differences were found between the splinted and unsplinted groups (P < .12). CONCLUSIONS: The short implants used in this study displayed high longterm predictability when placed in the mandible and splinted. There is insufficient- information to extrapolate these results to the maxilla and non-splinted implants.

Dental zirconia implants up to three years in function: a retrospective clinical study and evaluation of prosthetic restorations and failures.

PURPOSE: The clinical evaluation of one-piece zirconia dental implants with different diameters to determine survival rate and type of implant failure. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Information concerning implant surgery (number, diameter, length, and position of inserted implants; patient age, sex, risk factors, and bone quality) was extracted from the clinical records. All treated patients were then recalled for a follow-up examination to check the current clinical parameters concerning soft tissue, implants, and prosthetic reconstructions. RESULTS: A total of 79 patients received 170 implants (diameter-reduced 3.25 mm: n = 59; diameter 4.0 mm: n = 82; diameter 5.0 mm: n = 29). The clinical examination showed no signs of gingival inflammation. Prosthetic information was available for 119 implants restored with single crowns (87 implants), fixed partial dentures (25 implants), and removable hybrid dentures (7 implants). Overall, 30 implants were lost due to lack of osseointegration (n = 17) or fracture (n = 13). The diameter-reduced implants showed the lowest survival rate (59.5%) compared to the implants with a diameter of 4.0 mm (90.6%) and 5.0 mm (73.9%). The survival rate for diameters of 3.25 mm was significantly lower than that for diameters of 4.0 mm. The estimated cumulative survival rate up to 3 years demonstrated a survival probability of 82.4% for all types of implant diameters and failure. CONCLUSIONS: Based on these results, diameter-reduced zirconia dental implants cannot be recommended for clinical use. The overall survival rate of 82.4% is not acceptable in comparison to the well-established survival rate of titanium implants.

Retrospective analysis of dental implants placed and restored by advanced prosthodontic residents.

PURPOSE: The purposes of this retrospective clinical review were to: (1) describe the demographics of implant patients, types of implant treatment and implant-supported prostheses in an Advanced Education in Prosthodontic Program, (2) evaluate the survival rate of dental implants placed by prosthodontic residents from 2006 to 2008, and (3) analyze the relationship between resident year of training and implant survival rate. MATERIAL AND METHODS: All patients who received dental implants placed by prosthodontic residents from January 2006 to October of 2008 in the Advanced Prosthodontic Program at the University of Illinois at Chicago College of Dentistry were selected for this study. Age, gender, implant diameter, length, implant locations, surgical and restorative detail, and year of prosthodontic residency training were collected and analyzed. Life-table and Kaplan-Meier survival analyses were performed based on implants overall, locations, year of training, and use of a computer-generated surgical guide. A Logrank statistic was performed between implant survival and year of prosthodontic residency training, location, and use of computer-generated surgical guide (α= 0.05). RESULTS: Three hundred and six implants were placed, and of these, seven failed. Life-table and Kaplan-Meier analyses computed a cumulative survival rate (CSR) of 97% for overall implants and implants placed with a computer-generated surgical guide. No statistical difference was found in implant survival rates as a function of year of training (P= 0.85). CONCLUSION: Dental implants placed by prosthodontic residents had a CSR comparable to previously published studies by other specialties. The year of prosthodontic residency training and implant failure rate did not have any significant relationship.

An inventory of mandibular fractures associated with implants in atrophic edentulous mandibles: a survey of Dutch oral and maxillofacial surgeons.

PURPOSE: The present study provides an inventory of the number of fractures that occurred in conjunction with implant placement in edentulous patients in the Dutch population from 1980 to 2007 and estimates the incidence with which this might occur. The study also sought to define the factors that increase the risk of fracture. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Questionnaires were sent to all 198 oral and maxillofacial surgeons working in 56 hospitals in the Netherlands. Questions were asked regarding the causes of fractures, the height of the edentulous mandible, and the methods of fracture treatment. RESULTS: Responses were received from 53 of the 56 departments. During the study period, 157 edentulous mandibles fractured in conjunction with implant treatment. All fractures occurred in mandibles with less than 10 mm of height, as measured in the symphysis. An incidence of less than 0.05% was estimated based on an estimated number of 475,000 patients treated with at least two implants during this time to support an overdenture. Reasons for early implant failures were insufficient bone volume, iatrogenic causes, nonintegration, and a narrow arch. Peri-implantitis, trauma, and explantation were associated with fractures occurring 1 year or more after implant placement. Several methods were employed to treat the fractured mandibles, including closed reduction, rigid fixation using osteosynthesis plates, and bone grafts with fixation. In 52% of patients, fracture healing was uneventful; however, in 48% of patients, complications were encountered, including osteomyelitis, nonunion, plate fracture, screw loosening, and dehiscences with subsequent infections. CONCLUSIONS: Mandibles with a height of 10 mm or less, as measured at the symphysis, are at risk of fractures and associated complications. The provision of proper informed consent regarding the advantages and disadvantages of placing implants in thin mandibles is essential.

Factors influencing edentulous patients' preferences for prosthodontic treatment.

The aim of this study was to identify factors influencing edentulous patients' preferences for treatment using conventional or implant dentures (ID). A consecutive sample of 112 patients was selected in a university facility. All patients responded to a questionnaire concerning preferences about treatment and factors influencing preferences for conventional complete dentures (CD), implant-retained overdentures (IRO) and fixed implant-supported prostheses (FISP). Subsequently, a set of 21 questions was presented, and patients were requested to rate the importance of various potential reasons influencing their choice of treatment. Preference for CD was more prevalent for maxilla (52·7%) and mandible (41·1%). Fixed implant-supported prostheses and IRO were preferred for the mandible (FISP=37·5%; IRO=21·4%) rather than maxilla (FISP=27·7%; IRO=19·6%). The most preferred treatment option among the subjects when evaluating both arches was the implant-supported fixed or removable prosthesis (FISP/IRO). A preference for combined upper and lower CD was also commonly reported (39·3%). Factor analysis identified six components that accounted for 72·2% of the total variance: (i) psychosocial benefits, (ii) functional performance, (iii) technical and financial concerns, (iv) post-insertion complaints, (v) removability and (vi) longevity. Technical and financial concerns (cost, complexity, surgery risks and duration of treatment) were more relevant for those who preferred ID (P<0·001). With the exception of post-insertion complaints, all mean scores of component factor loadings were positive for ID. Conventional complete dentures are associated with lower expected outcomes by patients, and cost-related issues are the major factors associated with the preferences for implant treatment of edentulous patients.