Assessing the Impact of Dental Implant Length on Early Failure Rates: A Retrospective Analysis

IF 0.8 Q3 Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutics Journal of Pharmacy and Bioallied Sciences Pub Date : 2024-06-07 DOI:10.4103/jpbs.jpbs_155_24
Bhuvaneshwari Karthikeyan, K. H. Kumar, K. Sadananda, Inderjit Murugendrappa Gowdar, S. Sonune, Doaa Abdelaziz A. Helal
{"title":"Assessing the Impact of Dental Implant Length on Early Failure Rates: A Retrospective Analysis","authors":"Bhuvaneshwari Karthikeyan, K. H. Kumar, K. Sadananda, Inderjit Murugendrappa Gowdar, S. Sonune, Doaa Abdelaziz A. Helal","doi":"10.4103/jpbs.jpbs_155_24","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT\n \n \n \n The selection criteria of implant is very critical. Implant length determines the mechanics of osseointegration.\n \n \n \n To investigate the influence of dental implant length on early failure rates, osseointegration success, peri-implant bone loss, and patient-reported outcomes.\n \n \n \n A retrospective analysis was conducted involving 124 participants who underwent dental implant placement. Implant lengths were categorized as short (n = 54), standard (n = 35), or long (n = 35) based on standard industry classifications. Baseline characteristics, implant lengths, and early failure rates within the first six months post-implantation were extracted from clinical records.\n \n \n \n Preliminary analysis revealed variations in early failure rates among different implant length categories. Short implants demonstrated a distinct pattern of complications compared to standard and long implants. Early failure rates were 8% for short implants, 4% for standard implants, and 2% for long implants (P = 0.04). Osseointegration success rates were 90%, 95%, and 98% for short, standard, and long implants, respectively. Peri-implant bone loss was 1.5 mm, 1.0 mm, and 0.8 mm for short, standard, and long implants, respectively (P = 0.02). Patient-reported outcomes indicated higher satisfaction levels in the long implant group (P = 0.03).\n \n \n \n The study highlights the importance of considering implant length in clinical decision-making and suggests potential associations with osseointegration success, peri-implant bone loss, and patient satisfaction.\n","PeriodicalId":16824,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Pharmacy and Bioallied Sciences","volume":" 8","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.8000,"publicationDate":"2024-06-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Pharmacy and Bioallied Sciences","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.4103/jpbs.jpbs_155_24","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutics","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

ABSTRACT The selection criteria of implant is very critical. Implant length determines the mechanics of osseointegration. To investigate the influence of dental implant length on early failure rates, osseointegration success, peri-implant bone loss, and patient-reported outcomes. A retrospective analysis was conducted involving 124 participants who underwent dental implant placement. Implant lengths were categorized as short (n = 54), standard (n = 35), or long (n = 35) based on standard industry classifications. Baseline characteristics, implant lengths, and early failure rates within the first six months post-implantation were extracted from clinical records. Preliminary analysis revealed variations in early failure rates among different implant length categories. Short implants demonstrated a distinct pattern of complications compared to standard and long implants. Early failure rates were 8% for short implants, 4% for standard implants, and 2% for long implants (P = 0.04). Osseointegration success rates were 90%, 95%, and 98% for short, standard, and long implants, respectively. Peri-implant bone loss was 1.5 mm, 1.0 mm, and 0.8 mm for short, standard, and long implants, respectively (P = 0.02). Patient-reported outcomes indicated higher satisfaction levels in the long implant group (P = 0.03). The study highlights the importance of considering implant length in clinical decision-making and suggests potential associations with osseointegration success, peri-implant bone loss, and patient satisfaction.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
评估种植牙长度对早期失败率的影响:回顾性分析
摘要 种植体的选择标准非常关键。种植体的长度决定了骨结合的机制。 为了研究种植体长度对早期失败率、骨结合成功率、种植体周围骨质流失和患者报告结果的影响。 我们对 124 名接受种植牙手术的患者进行了回顾性分析。根据标准的行业分类,种植体长度分为短型(n = 54)、标准型(n = 35)或长型(n = 35)。从临床记录中提取了基线特征、种植体长度和种植后头六个月内的早期失败率。 初步分析显示,不同种植体长度类别的早期失败率存在差异。与标准种植体和长种植体相比,短种植体的并发症模式更为明显。短种植体的早期失败率为 8%,标准种植体为 4%,长种植体为 2%(P = 0.04)。短种植体、标准种植体和长种植体的骨结合成功率分别为 90%、95% 和 98%。短种植体、标准种植体和长种植体的种植体周围骨质流失分别为 1.5 毫米、1.0 毫米和 0.8 毫米(P = 0.02)。患者报告结果显示,长种植体组的满意度更高(P = 0.03)。 该研究强调了在临床决策中考虑种植体长度的重要性,并提出了与骨结合成功率、种植体周围骨质流失和患者满意度之间的潜在联系。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
1.50
自引率
0.00%
发文量
275
审稿时长
34 weeks
期刊介绍: Journal of Pharmacy And Bioallied Sciences is a Quarterly multidisciplinary open access biomedical journal. Journal of Pharmacy And Bioallied Sciences is an international medium of interaction between scientist, academicians and industrial personnel’s.JPBS is now offial publication of OPUBS.
期刊最新文献
The Role of Tele-Orthodontics in Enhancing Patient Compliance and Treatment Monitoring Exploring the Therapeutic Potential of Omega-3 Fatty Acid Supplementation in Dry Eye Syndrome: An In vitro Investigation Enhancing Precision in Endodontic Procedures: An In vitro Investigation of Magnification and Enhanced Visualization Comparative Evaluation of Surgical Techniques for Pterygium Management: An In Vitro Study Schoolchildren’s Musculoskeletal Pain and Backpack Weight Impact on Posture: A Short-Term Study
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1