Related Experiment Video
Updated: Aug 13, 2026
Rapid Mix Preparation of Bioinspired Nanoscale Hydroxyapatite for Biomedical Applications
Published on: February 23, 2017
A distinguishable observation between survival and success rate outcome of hydroxyapatite-coated implants in 5-10
Zvi Artzi1, Guy Carmeli, Avital Kozlovsky
1Department of Periodontology, The Maurice and Gabriela Goldschleger School of Dental Medicine, Tel Aviv University, Tel Aviv, Israel. zviartzi@post.tau.ac.il
Purpose:
To differentiate between the survival and success definitions of functional hydroxyapatite (HA)-coated implant prosthesis.
Methods:
A total of 248 implants (62 patients), 5-10 years in function, were evaluated. The implant distribution length was 8 mm (6.5%), 10 mm (29.4%), 13 mm (30.2%) and 15 mm (33.9%). The diameter was 3.25 mm (60.1%) and 4 mm (39.9%). Probing depth (PD), gingival index (GI), height of keratinized mucosa (KM) and recession (REC) were measured. Periapical radiographs were taken to estimate the amount of crestal bone resorption (BL), mesially and distally, with the aid of a millimetric-scaled magnifying glass (x 8). Only implants that fulfilled the success rate criteria were considered as successful. All other functional implants were assigned to the non-successful group. All functional implant prostheses were defined as survival ones.
Results:
The accumulative survival rate after 5 and 10 years was 94.4% and 92.8%, respectively. Accumulative success rates were 89.9% and 54%, respectively. Implants 13 and 15 mm in length (97.9% and 96.4%, respectively) had the highest survival rate, which was higher over implants 8 and 10 mm in length (75%, P<0.01 and 88.2%, respectively). The survival rate of 4 mm diameter implants compared with 3.25 mm was 96.5% and 90.3%, respectively (P=0.019). The average BL was 1.7, 0.92 and 2.79 mm for the survival, successful and non-successful defined implant groups. PD was 3.26, 2.79 and 4 mm and GI was 0.96, 0.75 and 1.57, respectively. These measurements were statistically different between implant groups. KM and REC measurements showed similar scoring for all groups. A correlation was shown between successful and non-successful implants on the score of GI and PD (P<0.001 in both).
Conclusion:
A distinguishable observation between survival and success rate was noted particularly in long-term observations. Implant length and diameter have an influence on the survival rate. Clinical parameter scores expressed an influence on the defined implant status.
