Epidemiology of Implant Mortality Disparity Among Intraoral Positions and Prosthesis Types

To examine the disparity of single-crown implant failure with a similar loss of the splinted prosthesis in differing anatomical locations while controlling for other demographic and clinical variables that may confound the relationship between prosthesis types and implant loss.

A multicenter retrospective cohort study was designed to include patients treated with dental implants from 2003 to 2014. The variables included age, sex, systemic disease, bone graft, implant placement date, position of dental implant, length of dental implant, diameter of dental implant, loading time, type of prosthesis, type of opposing occlusion, latest check date, and survival or loss of the dental implant. The demographic and clinical variables' influence on the survival of dental implants was estimated by the Kaplan-Meier method. The position and diameter were adjusted for the accurate estimation of the relationship between the prosthesis type and survival of the dental implant with the Cox proportional hazard method.

A total of 1,151 dental implants from 403 patients were ascertained. After adjusting for the confounding effect of position and diameter, single-crown prostheses were 38.1 (95% CI: 15.1-118) times more likely to be lost than the connected-type prostheses. For single-crown implants, the waiting time for osseointegration before loading was the highest for the maxillary molar position and the lowest for the mandibular molar position (P < .0001), while the most frequent implant loss occurred in the maxillary anterior area, and the second frequent area was the maxillary molar position; the lowest occurrence of implant loss was for the mandibular molar position. This disparity was statistically significant (P = .0271).

Despite the high survival rates of endosseous implants as a whole, since the variation of implant loss was observed among the different anatomical positions for single-crown implants, special attention has to be given to the maxillary anterior and maxillary molar positions. A longer healing time assuming compensation for disadvantageous bone quality was not directly effective in increasing implant longevity in the vulnerable positions.