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
Comparative Study
. 1994 Sep;52(9):937-43; discussion 944.
doi: 10.1016/s0278-2391(10)80074-6.

Long-term follow-up on hydroxylapatite-coated cylindrical dental implants: a comparison between developmental and recent periods

Affiliations
Comparative Study

Long-term follow-up on hydroxylapatite-coated cylindrical dental implants: a comparison between developmental and recent periods

M S Block et al. J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 1994 Sep.

Abstract

Purpose: To compare success rates for dental implants placed from 1985 through 1988 and from 1989 through 1991, and to investigate the factors associated with success or failure.

Patients and methods: All hydroxylapatite-coated cylindrical implants placed from 1985 through 1991 were followed yearly. Lifetable survival analyses compared implant success for a "developmental period" from 1985 through 1988 (4 to 8 years follow-up) and a "recent period" from 1989 through 1991 (1 to 4 years follow-up). Reasons for success or failure, time from implant placement to removal related to failure reason, outcome after implant removal, and a morbidity analysis are included.

Results: The 7 to 8-year cumulative success rate for all implants placed in the developmental period (maxilla and mandible combined) was 86.5%; it was 84.2% for all maxillary implants and 87.5% for all mandibular implants. The cumulative success rate for all implants placed in the recent period was 97.5%; it was 97.5% for all maxillary implants and 97.6% for all mandibular implants. The difference between the two periods was statistically significant only for the anterior maxilla. Regression analysis on the interval success rates indicates that interval failure did not follow a linear relationship with time. The most common reasons associated with failure were lack of keratinized gingiva, poor oral hygiene, mechanical overload, and malposition.

Conclusion: Comparison with previously reported cumulative success rates indicated learning curve experiences comparable with other implant systems. Improvements in hardware, surgical and prosthetic techniques, and patient selection have led to an improvement in success rates with the recent period implants.

PubMed Disclaimer

Publication types

MeSH terms

LinkOut - more resources