Related Experiment Video
Updated: Aug 6, 2025
An Improved Mechanical Testing Method to Assess Bone-implant Anchorage
Published on: February 10, 2014
Survival of osseointegrated implants: a 10-year retrospective study
P A Penitente1, J P do Vale Souza1, D M Dos Santos1
1Department of Dental Materials and Prosthodontics, Aracatuba Dental School, Sao Paulo State University (UNESP), Brazil.
Introduction:
New techniques, surgical protocols, dental implant designs, and prosthetic rehabilitation have been used in dentistry, most of which have yielded good results in the literature. This retrospective survey assessed the clinical results of patients rehabilitated with dental implants between January 2011 and December 2021. Load protocols (immediate and conventional), types of connections of the installed implants, external hexagon (EH), and cone morse (MC) were evaluated.
Material And Methods:
Two evaluators were selected and calibrated to perform the analyses. The inclusion criteria were records with complete and legible information of patients rehabilitated with dental implants who were followed for at least 1 year after rehabilita-tion. The medical records were divided into two groups, G1 (implants with conventional load) and G2 (implants with immediate load), and further subdivided according to implant type. Information about the rehabilitation failures was noted and descriptive statistics of the results were obtained.
Results:
Among the 432 evaluated medical records of patients rehabilitated with implants, the study included 319 records: 223 from women and 96 from men, aged 20-79 years. In total, data were available on 1,227 implants with dimensions of 10-13 mm and diameters of 3.75-4 mm. The G1 (n=1.188) survival rates were 94.95% for EH implants and 99.5% for MC implants. In G2 (n=39), the survival rates were 93.75% for EH implants and 91.3% for MC implants. The implant survival rates were relatively high among all groups evaluated; however, the discrepancy between the number of implants in the groups may compromise the comparison between them. Understanding and respecting the biomechanical and technical principles of each protocol was the main factor influencing the success of rehabilitation.
Conclusion:
The results of this study showed that, according to medical records, rehabilitation with dental implants showed excellent results regardless of the connection type (EH or MC) or loading protocol (conventional or immediate). The two loading protocols and two connection types had excellent results and scientific support. Therefore, the choice should be based on the clinical needs of each patient.
