Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2017 Nov-Dec;7(6):351-355.
doi: 10.4103/jispcd.JISPCD_380_17. Epub 2017 Dec 29.

Factors Affecting the Survival Rate of Dental Implants: A Retrospective Study

Sonal Raikar  1 , Pratim Talukdar  2 , Sarala Kumari  3 , Sangram Kumar Panda  4 , Vinni Mary Oommen  5 , Arvind Prasad  6
Affiliations

Factors Affecting the Survival Rate of Dental Implants: A Retrospective Study

Sonal Raikar et al. J Int Soc Prev Community Dent. 2017 Nov-Dec.

Abstract

Aims and objectives: Dental implants have emerged as new treatment modality for the majority of patients and are expected to play a significant role in oral rehabilitation in the future. The present study was conducted to assess various factors affecting the survival rate of dental implants.

Materials and methods: The present retrospective study was conducted in the Department of Prosthodontics. In this study, 5200 patients with dental implants which were placed during June 2008-April 2015 were included. Exclusion criteria were patients with hormonal imbalance, patients with chronic infectious disease, patients receiving immunosuppressive therapy, pregnant women, drug and alcohol addicts, and patients with severe periodontal diseases. Parameters such as name, age, gender, length of implant, diameter of implant, location of implant, and bone quality were recorded. Data were tabulated and statistically evaluated with IBM SPSS Statistics for Windows, Version 20.0., IBM Corp., Armonk, NY, USA.

Results: Out of 5200 patients, 2800 were males and 2400 females. Maximum implants failures (55) were seen in age group above 60 years of age (males - 550, females -700). Age group <40 years (males - 750, females - 550) showed 20 failed implants. Age group 41-60 years (males - 1500, females - 1150) showed 45 failed implants. The difference was nonsignificant (P = 0.21). Maximum implant failure was seen in implants with length >11.5 mm (40/700) followed by implants with <10 mm (20/1650) and 10-11.5 mm (60/2850). The difference was significant (P < 0.05). Maximum implants failure (30/1000) was seen in implants with diameter <3.75 mm followed by implants with diameter >4.5 mm (16/1600) and implants with diameter 3.75-4.5 mm (50/2600). The Chi-square test showed significant results (P < 0.05). Mandibular posterior showed 3.3% implants failure, maxillary posterior revealed 2.2%, maxillary anterior showed 2.1%, and mandibular anterior showed 1% failure rate; this difference was significant (P < 0.05). Type I bone showed 0.3% implant failure, Type II showed 1.95%, Type III showed 3%, and Type IV revealed 0.8% failure rate; this difference was significant (P < 0.05).

Conclusion: Age, length of implant, diameter of implant, bone quality, and region of implant are factors determining the survival rate of implants. We found that implant above 11.5 mm length, and with diameter <3.75 mm, placed in the mandibular posterior region, in Type III bone showed maximum failures.

Keywords: Bone quality; failure; implant; length of implant; success.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

There are no conflicts of interest.

Figures

Graph 1
Graph 1
Survival rate according to implant length
Graph 2
Graph 2
Survival rate according to implant diameter
Graph 3
Graph 3
Survival rate according to bone quality
Graph 4
Graph 4
Survival rate according to bone quality
See this image and copyright information in PMC

Similar articles

See all similar articles

Cited by

See all "Cited by" articles

References

    1. Tricio J, Laohapand P, van Steenberghe D, Quirynen M, Naert I. Mechanical state assessment of the implant-bone continuum: A better understanding of the Periotest method. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 1995;10:43–9. - PubMed
    1. Buser D, Mericske-Stern R, Bernard JP, Behneke A, Behneke N, Hirt HP, et al. Long-term evaluation of non-submerged ITI implants. Part 1: 8-year life table analysis of a prospective multi-center study with 2359 implants. Clin Oral Implants Res. 1997;8:161–72. - PubMed
    1. Tonetti MS, Schmid J. Pathogenesis of implant failures. Periodontol. 2000;1994(4):127–38. - PubMed
    1. Albrektsson T, Brånemark PI, Hansson HA, Lindström J. Osseointegrated titanium implants. Requirements for ensuring a long-lasting, direct bone-to-implant anchorage in man. Acta Orthop Scand. 1981;52:155–70. - PubMed
    1. Kim SH, Kim SJ, Lee KW, Han DH. The effects of local factorson the survival rate of dental implants: A 19 year retrospective study. J Korean Acad Prosthodont. 2010;48:28–40.