Five decades of research on immediate implant therapy: A modern bibliometric network analysis via Altmetric and level of evidence mapping.

AIM: To conduct a bibliometric network analysis to explore the research landscape of immediate implant placement (IIP) and provide insights into its trends and contributors. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The Scopus database was utilized as the bibliographic source, and a search strategy was implemented to identify relevant research articles. Various bibliometric parameters were extracted, including publication year, journal, authors, citations, and funding. The analysis involved examining authorship patterns, international collaborations, level of evidence, Altmetric data, and funding analysis. RESULTS: We identified a steady annual growth rate of 6.49% in IIP research. The top three countries contributing to research output were the USA, Italy, and China. Prolific authors were identified based on publication and citation metrics. International collaborations among different countries were observed. The level of evidence analysis revealed that over 30% of the articles fell into higher levels of evidence (levels 1 and 2). Altmetric data analysis indicated no significant correlations between citation counts and Altmetric Attention Score (AAS), and conversely a significant association with Mendeley readers count. Funding and open access did not significantly impact the bibliometric indices of the papers. CONCLUSIONS: The focus of research on IIP has been evolving as indicated by an exponential growth rate in this study. Only approximately 16% of the articles fit into level 1 evidence, therefore, emphasizing on higher quality level research study shortage in this field. Modern indices can be used as new bibliometric indicators as they also cover social media and online attention scores.

Risk factors associated with early implant failure: A retrospective review.

PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to investigate the association between possible risk factors and early implant failure. PATIENTS AND METHODS: This retrospective cohort study included consecutive patients receiving dental implant treatment in a four-year timeframe. Patient-related variables (age, sex, smoking, and systemic disease), local factors (area, reason for tooth extraction, and bone quality), surgical variables (bone augmentation, time of implant placement, staging, and antibiotic prophylaxis), and implant-related factors (brand, length, and diameter) were analyzed. Bivariate analyses and multivariate logistic regression model were used to determine the variables associated with early implant failure. RESULTS: The study group comprised 1323 implants in 738 patients with a mean of 1.8 implants/patient of which, 53 failed in 52 patients in the early stage (before final prosthetic loading). According to the multivariate model, smoking (Odds Ratio=1.836, P=0.031), posterior maxillary region (OR=2.958, P=0.006), implantation in place of teeth extracted due to periodontal problems (OR=2.531, P=0.004), bone type IV (OR=2.881, P=0.008), implant in previously augmented site (OR=2.239, P=0.014), and immediate provisional prosthesis (OR=3.418, P=0.019) were associated with a significantly higher risk of early implant failure. Narrow implants showed a significantly higher risk of early failure in bivariate analyses (P=0.012). However, the effect was no longer significant in the multivariate model (OR=2.322, P=0.068). CONCLUSION: Early implant failure would be more expected in smokers, posterior maxilla, history of periodontal problems, type IV bone, augmented bone, and immediately loaded cases.

Endosseous distal extension (EDE) blade implant technique useful to provide stable pillars in the ipotrophic lower posterior sector: 22 years statistical survey.

The aim of this issue is to describe endosseous distal extension (EDE) surgical technique. This implant technique was conceived and applied since 1993 by Dr Luca Dal Carlo, as an evolution of the classical ramus blade implant technique. With this technique, you attain great stability of the blade implant, due to the following difference compared with the classical blade implant technique: the hard and soft tissues lying behind implant abutment are not being destroyed at all. A slot is made on the upper side of the bone ridge, and the blade is inserted into it and pushed backwards, so that the implant is embedded under untouched tissues. Using blade implants specially drawn for this particular surgery, the slot's length turns out to be about half of the implant's length. Piezo bistoury is useful to facilitate surgical proceedings. If we compare the regenerated bone on the mesial part of the implant and the bone that had remained untouched on the distal side, we will see a difference in the tissue density even after a long time. EDE technique is suitable for those cases in which the lower distal sector is characterized by scarceness of cancellous bone. Data collected during 22 years of clinical practice (97.7% 5-year success rate) allow to suggest employing this technique with asymmetric blades to treat D3-D4 narrow ridges located in the posterior mandible. Soft tissue response results are very good.

Evaluation of the Peri-Implant Bone Level around Platform-Switched Dental Implants: A Retrospective 3-Year Radiographic Study.

OBJECTIVE: To describe remodeling of the mesial and distal marginal bone level around platform-switched (PS) and platform-matched (PM) dental implants that were sandblasted with large grit and etched with acid over a three-year period. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Digital periapical radiographs were obtained at the following time-points: during Stage I of the surgical placement of dental implants, before loading, immediately after loading (baseline), and one, three, six, 12, and 36 months after loading for measuring the horizontal and vertical marginal bone levels. RESULTS: Sixty implants were successfully osseointegrated during the overall observation period. Vertical marginal bone levels for the PS and PM dental implants were 0.78 ± 0.77 and 0.98 ± 0.81 mm, respectively, whereas the horizontal marginal bone levels for the PS and PM implants were 0.84 ± 0.45 and 0.98 ± 0.68 mm, respectively. During the time leading up to the procedure until 36 months after the procedure, the average vertical marginal bone level resulted in less bone loss for the PS and PM groups-0.96 ± 1.28 and 0.30 ± 1.15 mm, respectively (p < 0.05). The mean levels of the horizontal marginal bone also showed increases of 0.48 ± 1.01 mm in the PS and 0.37 ± 0.77 mm in the PM groups from the time before loading until 36 months after the procedure. However, these increases were not statistically significant (p > 0.05). CONCLUSION: PS dental implants appeared to be more effective than PM implants for minimizing the mean marginal vertical and horizontal marginal bone loss during the three-year period. Regardless of which abutment connection was used, the dental implant in the present retrospective investigation exhibited minimal marginal bone remodeling, thus indicating long-term stability.

Failure rates of mini-implants inserted in the retromolar area.

OBJECTIVE: Anchorage reinforcement is an important issue in orthodontic treatment. There is a lack of evidence regarding the failure rate of mini-implants inserted in the retromolar (RM) area, therefore the purpose of this present study was to evaluate the failure rates of mini-implants inserted in the RM area and to evaluate the factors affecting their stability. MATERIAL AND METHODS: This retrospective cohort study of 102 patients (52 female, 55 male; mean age: 18.6years; SD: 5.2years) that had received 110 RM mini-implants for orthodontic treatment from 1.2.2012 to 1.6.2017 was conducted after IRB approval at the department of orthodontics. Clinical notes and photographic images of the patients were analysed to evaluate the dependent and independent variables. The primary outcome was mini-implant failure. Independent variables of patient related factors, mini-implant related factors, orthodontic related factors, surgical related factors, and maintenance-related factors were evaluated by logistic regression models for association to failure rates. RESULTS: A 23.2% failure rate of mini-implants inserted in the RM area was observed. The patient's right side and inflammation were significantly associated with RM mini-implant failure. The odds ratios (relative risk) for mini-implant failure in the right side, and in mini-implants with inflammation around them were 0.166 and 0.188, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Failure rate for RM mini-implants were found to be 23.2%. To minimize RM mini-implant failure, clinicians should attempt to reduce inflammation around the mini-implants, especially for mini-implants placed on the right RM area.

Number of implants placed for complete-arch fixed prostheses: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVES: The main purpose of this systematic review was to evaluate outcomes related to the number of implants utilized to support complete-arch fixed prostheses, both for the maxilla and the mandible. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This review followed the reporting guidelines of the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA). A focused question using the PICO format was developed, questioning whether "In patients with an implant supported fixed complete dental prosthesis, do implant and prosthetic survival outcomes differ between five or more compared to fewer than five supporting implants?". A comprehensive search of the literature was formulated and performed electronically and by hand search. Two independent reviewers selected the papers and tabulated results. Primary outcomes analyzed were implant and prosthesis survival. Implant distribution, loading, and type of retention were observed as secondary outcomes, as they relate to the number of implants. A meta-analysis was performed to compare results for studies by number of implants. RESULTS: The search strategy identified 1,579 abstracts for initial review. Based on evaluation of the abstracts, 359 articles were identified for full-text evaluation. From these, 93 were selected and included in this review, being nine RCTs, 42 prospective and 42 retrospective. Of the 93 selected studies, 28 reported number of implants for the maxilla, 46 for the mandible, and 19 for both maxilla and mandible. The most reported number of implants for the "fewer than five" group is 4 for the maxilla, and 3 and 4 for the mandible, whereas for the "five or more" implants group, the most reported number of implants was 6 for the maxilla and 5 for the mandible. No significant differences in the primary outcomes analyzed were identified when fewer than five implants per arch were compared with five or more implants per arch (p > 0.05), in a follow-up time ranging from 1 to 15 years (median of 8 years). CONCLUSIONS: Evidence from this systematic review and meta-analysis suggests that the use of fewer than five implants per arch, when compared to five or more implants per arch, to support a fixed prosthesis of the completely edentulous maxilla or mandible, present similar survival rates, with no statistical significant difference at a p < 0.05 and a confidence interval of 95%.

Dental implant register: Summary and consensus statements of group 2. The 5th EAO Consensus Conference 2018.

OBJECTIVES: This publication reports the EAO Workshop group-2 and consensus plenary discussions and statements on a narrative review providing the background and possible facilities and importance of a dental implant register, to allow for a systematic follow-up of the clinical outcome of dental implant treatment in various clinical settings. It should be observed that the format of the review and the subsequent consensus report consciously departs from conventional consensus publications and reports. MATERIAL AND METHODS: The publication was a narrative review on the presence and significance of quality registers regarding select medical conditions and procedures. The group discussed and evaluated the publication and made corrections and recommendations to the authors and agreed on the statements and recommendations described in this consensus report. RESULTS: Possible registrations to be included in an implant register were discussed and agreed as a preliminary basis for further development, meaning that additional parameters be included or some be deleted. CONCLUSIONS: It was agreed to bring the idea of an implant quality register, including the presented results of discussions and proposals by the group- and plenary sessions, to the EAO Board for further discussion and decision.

Dental Implant Quality Register-A possible tool to further improve implant treatment and outcome.

The Board of EAO (European Association for Osseointegration) has discussed an initiative to explore the conditions to establish a Dental Implant Register. It was suggested to bring this issue to the EAO Consensus Conference 2018 for a discussion and to possibly propose relevant and manageable parameters. This article presents some select examples from quality registers in the medical field. Based on the experience of established registers, essentially in the medical field, factors considered to be of importance, if and when establishing a Dental Implant Register are introduced and discussed.

Retrospective Analysis of Long-Term (up to 12 years) Clinical and Radiologic Performance of Anodized-Surface Implants.

To accurately assess the long-term performance of anodized-surface implants, more data monitoring is needed outside of clinical evaluations. This retrospective study evaluated long-term implant survival and bone remodeling after up to 12 years of function. Data from 195 implants placed in 60 patients over a follow-up period ranging from 0.6 to 12.1 years were included. The implant-level survival rate was 99.0%. Marginal bone loss remained low across all follow-up cohorts. The data show that anodized-surface implants are a safe, reliable option with high implant survival rates and low levels of bone loss.

A systematic review and meta-analysis of the survival rate of implants placed in previously failed sites.

The aim of this study was to conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis to assess the clinical outcomes of dental implants placed in previously early and late implant failed sites. An electronic literature search was conducted in several databases for articles published up to February 2018. Human clinical trials that received at least one implant in a previously failed site were included. Hence, the PICO question that was aimed to be addressed was: Do patients undergoing implant replacement (second and third attempts) in previous failed sites have survival rates similar to implants placed at first attempts? A random effects model was used to calculate survival weighted means and corresponding 95% Confidence Intervals (CI) among studies. Eleven studies of low to moderate methodological quality were included in this review. Implants placed in sites with history of one and two implant failures had a weighted survival rate (SR) of 88.7% (95%CI 81.7-93.3) and 67.1% (95%CI 51.1-79.9), respectively. Implants placed in sites with a previous early failure revealed a weighted SR of 91.8% (95%CI 85.1-95.6). First implants presented higher SR than implants placed in sites with one or two previous implant failures. In contrast, implants placed in sites with one and two implant failures had similar SR. Within its limitations, this review suggests that replacement implants have moderate SR. Larger prospective studies with well-defined criteria for early and late implant failure are necessary to confirm and expand on these results.

Clinical outcomes of ultrashort sloping shoulder implant design: A survival analysis.

BACKGROUND: Short implants are preferred in cases of limited bone height. Length and design of implant credits to stability and implant success, shorter implants tend to survive for longer time duration. PURPOSE: Retrospective cohort study was conducted with an aim to assess the clinical outcome and cumulative survival rate of sloping shoulder implants over a period of 8 years. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Data was collected from all patients attending private clinics in Dubai, UAE. Subjects received ultrashort sloping shoulder (Bicon) implant. Implants of 6 mm and less than 6 mm length were included in the study. Subject's information like age, gender, systemic condition, habits, and radiographs were collected. Implant variables that is number of implants placed, location of placement, loading type, bone type, bone condition, and graft type were collected. Data was analyzed using multivariate cox regression model to evaluate the correlation between implant variables and to identify the implant variables associated with failure. Kaplan-Meier method was adopted to assess the survival pattern of implants. RESULTS: Cumulative survival rate was 97% with average follow up of 28 months. Statistically significant differences were seen with implant length, arch type, bone type, and bone condition with P value <.001. CONCLUSION: Short implants with sloping shoulder design and plateau-type roots have superior survival rates when compared with regular implants. The bone condition was also witnessed to be statistically significantly superior.

Chronological Age as Factor Influencing the Dental Implant Osseointegration in the Jaw Bone.

The objectives of this study were to evaluate osseointegration of dental implant in the jaw bone in the young and elderly population and comparing the results to assess indicators and risk factors as age for the success or failure of dental implants. A retrospective study of 107 implants (Impladent, LASAK, Czech Republic) was prepared. The patients at implants surgery were divided in three groups. The patients were followed-up for a 7-year period. We evaluated osseointegration from long term point of view as a change of marginal bone levels close to dental implant. Marginal bone levels were recorded and analysed with regard to different patient- and implant-related factors. An influence of chronological age on change of marginal bone levels during 6-year retrospective study vas evaluated. The study examined 47 patient charts and 107 implants from the Second Faculty of Medicine, Charles University and University Hospital Motol. We proved that young healthy patients with long bridges or Branemarks have the same progression of marginal bone levels changes. The chronological age hasn't therefore direct influence on the osseointegration from long term point of view. But we found that the length of dental suprastrucure-prosthetic construction negatively influences marginal bone changes, though these results weren't statistically significant. More extensive dental implant suprastrucure undergoes smaller osseointegration. On the other hand the length of dental suprastrucure (prosthetic construction) negatively influences dental osseointegration in both groups of patient.

A systematic review and meta-analysis of the survival rate of implants placed in previously failed sites

Abstract The aim of this study was to conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis to assess the clinical outcomes of dental implants placed in previously early and late implant failed sites. An electronic literature search was conducted in several databases for articles published up to February 2018. Human clinical trials that received at least one implant in a previously failed site were included. Hence, the PICO question that was aimed to be addressed was: Do patients undergoing implant replacement (second and third attempts) in previous failed sites have survival rates similar to implants placed at first attempts? A random effects model was used to calculate survival weighted means and corresponding 95% Confidence Intervals (CI) among studies. Eleven studies of low to moderate methodological quality were included in this review. Implants placed in sites with history of one and two implant failures had a weighted survival rate (SR) of 88.7% (95%CI 81.7-93.3) and 67.1% (95%CI 51.1-79.9), respectively. Implants placed in sites with a previous early failure revealed a weighted SR of 91.8% (95%CI 85.1-95.6). First implants presented higher SR than implants placed in sites with one or two previous implant failures. In contrast, implants placed in sites with one and two implant failures had similar SR. Within its limitations, this review suggests that replacement implants have moderate SR. Larger prospective studies with well-defined criteria for early and late implant failure are necessary to confirm and expand on these results.

Immediate Early and Delayed Implants: A 2-Year Prospective Cohort Study of 131 Transmucosal Flapless Implants Placed in Sites With Different Pre-extractive Endodontic Infections.

INTRODUCTION: To evaluate clinical outcome of early, immediate, and delayed transmucosal implants placed in patients affected by acute/chronic endodontic lesions. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Eighty-five consecutive patients received 131 titanium implants with zirconium-oxide blasted surface. Pre-extractive diagnosis represented the main criteria for implant placement timing, following "best treatment" criteria. Implants were placed with flapless transmucosal technique. Hopeless teeth with chronic periapical lesions received atraumatic extraction, and an implant was immediately placed (Immediate Group, n = 29). Teeth with acute periapical lesion/abscess were extracted and implants placed after 8 to 12 weeks (Early Group, n = 29). Implants placed 10- to 12-month after extraction constituted the control group (delayed group, n = 73). Implants were loaded 3 months after insertion with provisional resin crowns and after approximately 15 days with definitive ceramic crowns. Marginal bone loss (MBL) was measured in a single-blind manner on periapical radiographs at 1, 3, 6, 12, and 24 months. RESULTS: Multilevel analysis described exploring factors associated with MBL. Survival rate was 100%. MBL after 24 months was 0.78 ± 0.70 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.20 to -1.37) at immediate, 0.48 ± 0.70 at early (95% CI: -0.006 to -0.961), and 1.02 ± 1.01 (95% CI: 0.61 to -1.43) at delayed groups. Implant groups (immediate/early/delayed) and location (maxillary/mandibular) showed statistically significant results. Early group showed the lowest MBL values. The immediate group demonstrated less MBL than the delayed group. CONCLUSION: Early implant placement technique preserves periimplant marginal bone level more than immediate and delayed techniques.

Clinical parameters of implants placed in healed sites using flapped and flapless techniques: A systematic review

Background: Dental implant placement using flapless surgery is a minimally invasive technique that improves blood supply compared with flapped surgery. However, the flapless technique does not provide access to allow bone regeneration. Objective: The aim of this systematic review was to evaluate the clinical parameters following implant surgery in healed sites, using two procedures: flapped vs. flapless surgery. Material and Methods: A detailed electronic search was carried out in the PubMed/Medline, Embase and Cochrane Library databases. The focused question was, "How do flapped and flapless surgical techniques affect the clinical parameters of dental implants placed in healed sites?". All the studies included with a prospective controlled design were considered separately, depending on whether they had been conducted on animals or humans. The following data were recorded in all the included studies: number of implants, failures, location (maxilla, mandible), type of rehabilitation (partial or single), follow-up and flap design. The variables selected for comparison in the animal studies were the following: flap design, gingival index, mucosal height, recession and probing pocket depth. In humans studies the variables were as follows: flap design, plaque index, gingival index, recession, probing pocket depth, papilla index and keratinized gingiva. Results: Ten studies were included, six were experimental studies and four were clinical studies. Studies in animals showed better results using the flapless technique in the parameters analyzed. There is no consensus in the clinical parameters analyzed in human studies, but there is a trend to better results using flapless approach. Conclusions: The animal studies included in the present review show that implants placed in healed sites with a flapless approach have better clinical parameters than the flapped procedure in a short-term follow-up. In human studies, there is no consensus about which technique offer better results in terms of clinical parameters. Therefore, more research in humans is required in order to overcome the limitations and contrast these results (AU)

No disponible

Single mandibular implant study (SMIS) - masticatory performance - results from a randomized clinical trial using two different loading protocols.

OBJECTIVES: This multi-centre randomized controlled trial was conducted to investigate, whether the masticatory performance of elderly edentulous patients is improved by placement of a single implant in the midline of the edentulous mandible, and whether improvements differ with respect to the loading protocol, i.e., implant is loaded either directly or three months later after second stage surgery. METHODS: Edentulous seniors aged 60-89 years were screened according to inclusion and exclusion criteria and 163 underwent implant placement. Of those, 158 were randomly assigned either to the direct loading group A (n=81) or the conventional loading group B (n=77). Chewing efficacy was obtained before treatment, one month after implant placement during the submerged healing phase (only group B) and 1 and 4 months after implant loading. RESULTS: The masticatory performance increased over time in both groups. Four months after loading, a significant increase was observed for both groups compared to the baseline data without implant (p≤0.05). However, between the two groups, chewing efficiency did not differ significantly at any point in time (p>0.05). CONCLUSIONS: A single midline implant in the edentulous mandible increases masticatory performance significantly, independently from the loading protocol. CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE: A single midline implant in the edentulous mandible increases masticatory performance. The loading protocol has no influence.

Implant dentistry in Australia: the present and future. A survey of Australian dentists and specialists.

BACKGROUND: In recent years, implant dentistry has become a routine part of many general dental practices in Australia. However, there has been little information regarding its extent and scope. This investigation aimed to address this issue by surveying Australian general dental practitioners (GDP) and relevant specialists regarding their practice of implant dentistry. METHODS: Anonymous electronic surveys were designed online using SurveyMonkey™ and delivered to the following professional bodies: all seven state/territory branches of the Australian Dental Association, the Australian and New Zealand Academy of Periodontists, the Australian and New Zealand Academy of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgeons, and prosthodontist members of the Australian Prosthodontic Society. The surveys were completed online via SurveyMonkey in 2014. RESULTS: The response rates were 7.61% (N = 801) for GDP, 41.76% (N = 38) for prosthodontists, 34.16% (N = 55) for periodontists and 34.07% (N = 46) for oral and maxillofacial (OMF) surgeons. Among the respondents, 66.37% (N = 521) of GDP, 86.11% (N = 31) of prosthodontists, 82.98% (N = 39) of periodontists and 97.67% (N = 42) of OMF surgeons indicated that they currently practise implant dentistry. A strong perceived need for further education in this field was also expressed by the respondents. CONCLUSIONS: Implant dentistry presently appears to be practised by a significant proportion of GDP across Australia. This is likely to continue to grow in the future.

Epidemiology of Implant Mortality Disparity Among Intraoral Positions and Prosthesis Types.

PURPOSE: To examine the disparity of single-crown implant failure with a similar loss of the splinted prosthesis in differing anatomical locations while controlling for other demographic and clinical variables that may confound the relationship between prosthesis types and implant loss. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A multicenter retrospective cohort study was designed to include patients treated with dental implants from 2003 to 2014. The variables included age, sex, systemic disease, bone graft, implant placement date, position of dental implant, length of dental implant, diameter of dental implant, loading time, type of prosthesis, type of opposing occlusion, latest check date, and survival or loss of the dental implant. The demographic and clinical variables' influence on the survival of dental implants was estimated by the Kaplan-Meier method. The position and diameter were adjusted for the accurate estimation of the relationship between the prosthesis type and survival of the dental implant with the Cox proportional hazard method. RESULTS: A total of 1,151 dental implants from 403 patients were ascertained. After adjusting for the confounding effect of position and diameter, single-crown prostheses were 38.1 (95% CI: 15.1-118) times more likely to be lost than the connected-type prostheses. For single-crown implants, the waiting time for osseointegration before loading was the highest for the maxillary molar position and the lowest for the mandibular molar position (P < .0001), while the most frequent implant loss occurred in the maxillary anterior area, and the second frequent area was the maxillary molar position; the lowest occurrence of implant loss was for the mandibular molar position. This disparity was statistically significant (P = .0271). CONCLUSION: Despite the high survival rates of endosseous implants as a whole, since the variation of implant loss was observed among the different anatomical positions for single-crown implants, special attention has to be given to the maxillary anterior and maxillary molar positions. A longer healing time assuming compensation for disadvantageous bone quality was not directly effective in increasing implant longevity in the vulnerable positions.

Long-Term Implant Survival After 100 Maxillary Sinus Augmentations Using Plasma Rich in Growth Factors.

PURPOSE: To identify determinants of long-term implant survival after sinus augmentation procedure (SAP) using a combination of plasma rich in growth factors (PRGF) and graft material. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Patients were included in this retrospective study if they underwent SAP through a lateral wall approach using PRGF in combination with mainly xenograft, and received implants restored for at least 1 year. Sociodemographic, behavioral and implant characteristics (clinical factors, implant details, surgical details, prosthesis details, and complications) were analyzed. RESULTS: Sixty-seven patients received 217 implants in 100 augmented sinuses. The mean follow-up was 7.2 years. Overall, 22 implants failed in 15 patients (90% cumulative implant survival). Multivariable models showed greater implant survival with implants placed with ≥5 mm of residual crestal bone height (RBH) compared with those placed with <3 mm of RBH. There was also an improvement in survival comparing implant lengths. In addition, immediate loading of implants significantly increased the risk of implant failure. CONCLUSION: The use of PRGFs for maxillary sinus grafting may be an effective and safe treatment option for the rehabilitation of atrophic edentulous posterior maxillae. However, randomized clinical trials are needed to confirm these findings.

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.