Long-term evaluation of 282 implants in maxillary and mandibular molar positions: a prospective study.

BACKGROUND: Placement of implants into molar positions presents diagnostic, surgical and prosthetic challenges. There are few reported studies for implants placed into molar positions. The purpose of this prospective longitudinal study is to report long-term clinical outcomes for 282 implants placed into molar positions. METHODS: Two-hundred-twelve patients received 282 implants. Implant size, location, jaw shape, and bone quality were recorded for all implants placed into molar positions. Seventy implants were inserted in maxillae and 212 in mandibles. Marginal bone level changes in maxillae and mandibles were measured from non-standardized periapical radiographs taken at abutment connection and an average follow-up of 3.9 years. Mesial-distal implant measurements were made from the top of the implant cylinder to the first point of bone to implant contact. In mandibles, 39 implants were used for single molar replacements, 67 implants were placed into excellent bone quality (type I) and 113 were in good bone quality (type 11); 145 implants were placed into bone with moderate bone resorption (type B); 166 implants were placed in first molar positions and 46 in second molar sites. RESULTS: At 6 years the cumulative success rate (CSR) for mandibular implants is 91.5%, and the success rate from the 2 to 3 year follow-up is 100%. Of the 70 implants placed in maxillae, 16 replaced single molars. Thirty-two implants were placed in jaw shape B with type 2-bone quality. For maxillary implants, the 6-year CSR was 82.9% and the success rate remained steady at 100% after the 2 to 3 year follow-up. For maxillary implants, at abutment connection the average marginal bone level was 1.67 mm, while at follow-up it was 1.98 mm. These differences were statistically significant (P = 0.04), but are not considered to be clinically significant. For mandibular implants, at abutment connection the mean marginal bone level as measured from radiographs was 2.11 mm, and at follow-up was 2.02 mm. This slight gain in bone level was not statistically significant and is not considered to be clinically significant. CONCLUSIONS: Results of this prospective longitudinal study of implants placed into molar positions indicates favorable clinical outcomes. These CSR rates (91.5% mandibles, 82.9% maxillae) are less than what has been reported for implants placed into mandibular and maxillary anterior segments. Differences in outcomes between anterior and posterior locations may be related to bone quality and quantity.