Group 1 ITI Consensus Report: The influence of implant length and design and medications on clinical and patient-reported outcomes
AuthorJung, Ronald; Al-Nawas, Bilal; Araujo, Mauricio; Avila-Ortiz, Gustavo; Barter, Stephen; Brodala, Nadine; Chappuis, Vivianne; Chen, Bo; De Souza, Andre; Almeida, Ricardo Faria; Fickl, Stefan; Finelle, Gary; Ganeles, Jeffrey; Gholami, Hadi; Hammerle, Christoph; Jensen, Simon; Jokstad, Asbjørn; Katsuyama, Hideaki; Kleinheinz, Johannes; Kunavisarut, Chatchai; Mardas, Nikos; Monje, Alberto; Papaspyridakos, Panos; Payer, Michael; Schiegnitz, Eik; Smeets, Ralf; Stefanini, Martina; ten Bruggenkate, Christiaan; Vazouras, Konstantinos; Weber, Hans-Peter; Weingart, Dieter; Windisch, Péter
Objectives: The aim of Working Group 1 was to address the influence of different local (implant length, diameter, and design) and systemic (medications) factors on clinical, radiographic, and patient‐reported outcomes in implant dentistry. Focused questions on (a) short posterior dental implants (≤6 mm), (b) narrow diameter implants, (c) implant design (tapered compared to a non‐tapered implant design), and (d) medication‐related dental implant failures were addressed.
Materials and methods: Four systematic reviews were prepared in advance of the Consensus Conference and were discussed among the participants of Group 1. Consensus statements, clinical recommendations, and recommendations for future research were based on structured group discussions until consensus was reached among the entire expert Group 1. The statements were then presented and accepted following further discussion and modifications as required by the plenary.
Results: Short implants (≤6 mm) revealed a survival rate ranging from 86.7% to 100%, whereas standard implant survival rate ranged from 95% to 100% with a follow‐up from 1 to 5 years. Short implants demonstrated a higher variability and a higher Risk Ratio [RR: 1.24 (95% CI: 0.63, 2.44, p = 0.54)] for failure compared to standard implants.
Narrow diameter implants (NDI) have been classified into three categories: Category 1: Implants with a diameter of <2.5 mm (“Mini‐implants”); Category 2: Implants with a diameter of 2.5 mm to <3.3 mm; Category 3: Implants with a diameter of 3.3 mm to 3.5 mm. Mean survival rates were 94.7 ± 5%, 97.3 ± 5% and 97.7 ± 2.3% for category 1, 2 and 3.
Tapered versus non‐tapered implants demonstrated only insignificant differences regarding clinical, radiographic, and patient‐reported outcomes. The intake of certain selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors and proton pump inhibitors is associated with a statistically significant increased implant failure rate. The intake of bisphosphonates related to the treatment of osteoporosis was not associated with an increased implant failure rate.
Conclusions: It is concluded that short implants (≤6 mm) are a valid option in situations of reduced bone height to avoid possible morbidity associated with augmentation procedures; however, they reveal a higher variability and lower predictability in survival rates. Narrow diameter implants with diameters of 2.5 mm and more demonstrated no difference in implant survival rates compared to standard diameter implants. In contrast, it is concluded that narrow diameter implants with diameters of less than 2.5 mm exhibited lower survival rates compared to standard diameter implants. It is further concluded that there are no differences between tapered versus non‐tapered dental implants.
Certain medications such as selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors and proton pump inhibitors showed an association with a higher implant failure rate.
CitationJung, R.E., Al-Nawas, B., Araujo, M., Avila-Ortiz, G., Barter, S., Brodala, N., ... Windisch, P. (2018). Group 1 ITI Consensus Report: The influence of implant length and design and medications on clinical and patient-reported outcomes. Clinical Oral Implants Research, 29(S16), 69-77. https://doi.org/10.1111/clr.13342
Showing items related by title, author, creator and subject.
Systematic review of clinical and patient-reported outcomes following oral rehabilitation on dental implants with a tapered compared to a non-tapered implant design Jokstad, Asbjørn; Ganeles, Jeffrey (Journal article; Tidsskriftartikkel; Peer reviewed, 2018-10-17)<p><i>Background</i>: Dental implants are available in different shapes.</p> <p><i>Aims</i>: This systematic review aims to address whether tapered compared to non‐tapered implants demonstrate similar clinical and patient‐reported outcomes. The review follows the preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta‐analyses (PRISMA) format.</p> <p><i>Materials & Methods</i>: We searched ...
Haug, Bjørn; Kjelsberg, Kjærsti; Lappegård, Knut Tore (Journal article; Tidsskriftartikkel; Peer reviewed, 2011)Some countries have a demography that makes it necessary to maintain relatively small pacemaker centres. We wanted to assess the quality of pacemaker surgery in two such hospitals. Through patient records we gathered information on ∼535 consecutive primary pacemaker implantations in two small pacemaker centres with 30 and 80 annual operations, respectively. All patients were followed for 3 years. ...
Bone modifying techniques in the anterior maxilla prior to implant placement : a literature review Ikdahl, Åsmund Haavik; Ellingsen, Stig Aanerød; Åkre, Yngve (Master thesis; Mastergradsoppgave, 2012-05-29)Abstract: Objective: The aim was to describe the different bone enhancing techniques for improving the alveolar bone and gingival characteristics prior to implant placement Material and methods: A MEDLINE and PubMed English language peer-reviewed literature search was conducted. Hand searches of the reference lists in some selected articles were also conducted. The literature search was sorted ...