Show simple item record

dc.contributor.authorJung, Ronald
dc.contributor.authorAl-Nawas, Bilal
dc.contributor.authorAraujo, Mauricio
dc.contributor.authorAvila-Ortiz, Gustavo
dc.contributor.authorBarter, Stephen
dc.contributor.authorBrodala, Nadine
dc.contributor.authorChappuis, Vivianne
dc.contributor.authorChen, Bo
dc.contributor.authorDe Souza, Andre
dc.contributor.authorAlmeida, Ricardo Faria
dc.contributor.authorFickl, Stefan
dc.contributor.authorFinelle, Gary
dc.contributor.authorGaneles, Jeffrey
dc.contributor.authorGholami, Hadi
dc.contributor.authorHammerle, Christoph
dc.contributor.authorJensen, Simon
dc.contributor.authorJokstad, Asbjørn
dc.contributor.authorKatsuyama, Hideaki
dc.contributor.authorKleinheinz, Johannes
dc.contributor.authorKunavisarut, Chatchai
dc.contributor.authorMardas, Nikos
dc.contributor.authorMonje, Alberto
dc.contributor.authorPapaspyridakos, Panos
dc.contributor.authorPayer, Michael
dc.contributor.authorSchiegnitz, Eik
dc.contributor.authorSmeets, Ralf
dc.contributor.authorStefanini, Martina
dc.contributor.authorten Bruggenkate, Christiaan
dc.contributor.authorVazouras, Konstantinos
dc.contributor.authorWeber, Hans-Peter
dc.contributor.authorWeingart, Dieter
dc.contributor.authorWindisch, Péter
dc.date.accessioned2019-01-22T09:18:41Z
dc.date.available2019-01-22T09:18:41Z
dc.date.issued2018-10-17
dc.description.abstract<p><i>Objectives</i>: 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.</p> <p><i>Materials and methods</i>: 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.</p> <p><i>Results</i>: 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.</p> <p>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.</p> <p>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.</p> <p><i>Conclusions</i>: 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.</p> <p>Certain medications such as selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors and proton pump inhibitors showed an association with a higher implant failure rate.</p>en_US
dc.descriptionThe following article: Jung, 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. <i>Clinical Oral Implants Research, 29</i>(S16), 69-77, can be accessed at <a href=https://doi.org/10.1111/clr.13342> https://doi.org/10.1111/clr.13342</a>. This article may be used for non-commercial purposes in accordance with Wiley Terms and Conditions for Use of Self-Archived Versions.en_US
dc.identifier.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. <i>Clinical Oral Implants Research, 29</i>(S16), 69-77. https://doi.org/10.1111/clr.13342en_US
dc.identifier.issn0905-7161
dc.identifier.issn1600-0501
dc.identifier.otherFRIDAID 1621010
dc.identifier.other10.1111/clr.13342
dc.identifier.urihttps://hdl.handle.net/10037/14503
dc.language.isoengen_US
dc.publisherWileyen_US
dc.relation.journalClinical Oral Implants Research
dc.relation.urihttps://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/clr.13342
dc.rights.accessRightsopenAccessen_US
dc.subjectVDP::Medical disciplines: 700::Clinical dentistry disciplines: 830en_US
dc.subjectVDP::Medisinske Fag: 700::Klinisk odontologiske fag: 830en_US
dc.subjectbiological complicationsen_US
dc.subjectclinical decision‐makingen_US
dc.subjectdental implantsen_US
dc.subjectdrugen_US
dc.subjectendosseous implanten_US
dc.subjectepidemiologyen_US
dc.subjectfailureen_US
dc.subjecthumansen_US
dc.subjectmedicationen_US
dc.subjectmeta‐analysisen_US
dc.subjectnarrow diameteren_US
dc.subjectosteotomyen_US
dc.subjectrandomized controlled trialsen_US
dc.subjectreviewen_US
dc.subjectshort dental implantsen_US
dc.subjectsmall dental implantsen_US
dc.subjectsurvivalen_US
dc.titleGroup 1 ITI Consensus Report: The influence of implant length and design and medications on clinical and patient-reported outcomesen_US
dc.typeJournal articleen_US
dc.typeTidsskriftartikkelen_US
dc.typePeer revieweden_US


File(s) in this item

This item appears in the following collection(s)

Show simple item record