High age at the time of implant installation is correlated with increased loss of osseointegrated implants in the temporal bone

28Citations
Citations of this article
35Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.
Get full text

Abstract

Background The implant failure rate in temporal bone has been reported to be about 5 to 10? over a 10-year period. A number of our elderly patients have shown increased failure rates over a long time period, which is the reason for the present study. Purpose The aim of the present study was to find out if age is correlated with implant failure and to measure blood flow in implant sites. Materials and Methods The long-time survival of 131 osseointegrated implants installed in the temporal bones of 81 patients was correlated with the age of the patient at the time of installation. The blood flow in 37 fixture installation sites in 22 patients was recorded by means of laser Doppler flowmetry. Results The mean implant failure rate in the study group was 9.8? after a mean follow-up time of 7.6 years. There was a significant increase of implant failure in patients above 60 years of age. There was further a trend that implants used for the bone-anchored hearing aid were lost to a higher proportion than implants used for bone-anchored episthesis. There was also a trend that female patients lost fewer implants than males. Blood flow in the temporal bone correlated well with the age of the patient in that the highest values were recorded from the youngest patients. Conclusions Increasing age affects failures of osseointegrated implants in the temporal bone. Blood flow is higher in the child's temporal bone, a factor that can be of importance to understand why age influences implant survival. © 2007, Blackwell Munksgaard.

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Drinias, V., Granström, G., & Tjellström, A. (2007). High age at the time of implant installation is correlated with increased loss of osseointegrated implants in the temporal bone. Clinical Implant Dentistry and Related Research, 9(2), 94–99. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1708-8208.2007.00047.x

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