Relationship between indication for tooth extraction and outcome of immediate implants: A retrospective study with 5 years of follow-up

2Citations
Citations of this article
22Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.

Abstract

Objectives: The aims of this retrospective study were to evaluate the survival rate of a series of immediate implants after 3 years of follow-up and to study the relationship between survival and indication for tooth extraction. Study design: A retrospective study of patients treated with immediate implants between January 2003 and December 2008 was carried out. All patients receiving at least one post-extraction implant and a minimum follow-up of 5 years were included. Results: After 60 months, 30 immediate implants had been lost in 17 patients, yielding a total implant success rate of 93.8%. None of the implants placed failed after the extraction of included canines (100% success rate). In 20 failed implants the reason for extraction had been severe periodontal disease (91.8% SR), in 4 endodontic failure (88.6%SR), in 3 unrestorable caries (95.9% SR), in 1 untreatable fracture (95.2% SR) and in 2 improvement of prosthetic design (98.1% SR). No statistically significant influence was found between immediate implant failure and the reason for tooth extraction (p=0.11). Conclusions: The use of immediate implants is a successful alternative to replace missing teeth for severe periodontal disease, periapical pathology or by decay or untreatable fractures. Some reasons, such as periodontal disease itself is associated with a success rate significantly below the overall average. Similarly, the prosthetic design is associated with a better prognosis than all other reasons.

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Tarazona, B., Tarazona-Álvarez, P., Peñarrocha-Oltra, D., & Peñarrocha-Diago, M. (2014). Relationship between indication for tooth extraction and outcome of immediate implants: A retrospective study with 5 years of follow-up. Journal of Clinical and Experimental Dentistry, 6(4), e384–e388. https://doi.org/10.4317/jced.51616

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free