Factors in Post-Operative Implant Cervical Burnout: A Retrospective Review

Alex B Faigen, J. James, M. Stevens, S. Looney, A. Jenzer, T. Johnson
{"title":"Factors in Post-Operative Implant Cervical Burnout: A Retrospective Review","authors":"Alex B Faigen, J. James, M. Stevens, S. Looney, A. Jenzer, T. Johnson","doi":"10.31487/j.dobcr.2022.01.02","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Introduction: The purpose of this study was to evaluate the factors which had the greatest impact on implant cervical bone health. A retrospective review was completed, and various factors were examined. The investigators hypothesized that there is no difference in implant success based on location, brand, or length of the implant.\nMethods: A retrospective electronic chart review of patients from the Dental College of Georgia (DCG) was done, looking at a study population composed of all patients who had an implant placed between January 1, 2009, and January 1, 2010. This included any type of dental implant placed at this academic institution, within any of the multiple departments who place implants. Patients were excluded as study subjects if they had the implant placed by another practitioner outside of the DCG. Information including location, brand, timing, age, sex, and complications was examined.\nResults: The sample was composed of data extracted from the dental records of 67 eligible study participants. Of these, 63 (94%) had data on bone loss and all results in this paper are based on these 63 patients. The majority of the participants were female (42/63, 67%), and age ranged from 41 to 88 (mean 68.6, SD 12.3, median 70). Significantly more bone loss was found in maxillary implants than in mandibular. This was true for mesial (p = 0.013, Table 1), distal (p = 0.012, Table 2), and average bone loss (p = 0.006, Table 3).\nConclusion: The results of this study suggest a relation between implant length and positioning and bone loss. Future studies will focus on the development of more clinical markers and assessment tools for failure.","PeriodicalId":72781,"journal":{"name":"Dental Oral Biology and Craniofacial Research","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-03-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Dental Oral Biology and Craniofacial Research","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.31487/j.dobcr.2022.01.02","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Introduction: The purpose of this study was to evaluate the factors which had the greatest impact on implant cervical bone health. A retrospective review was completed, and various factors were examined. The investigators hypothesized that there is no difference in implant success based on location, brand, or length of the implant. Methods: A retrospective electronic chart review of patients from the Dental College of Georgia (DCG) was done, looking at a study population composed of all patients who had an implant placed between January 1, 2009, and January 1, 2010. This included any type of dental implant placed at this academic institution, within any of the multiple departments who place implants. Patients were excluded as study subjects if they had the implant placed by another practitioner outside of the DCG. Information including location, brand, timing, age, sex, and complications was examined. Results: The sample was composed of data extracted from the dental records of 67 eligible study participants. Of these, 63 (94%) had data on bone loss and all results in this paper are based on these 63 patients. The majority of the participants were female (42/63, 67%), and age ranged from 41 to 88 (mean 68.6, SD 12.3, median 70). Significantly more bone loss was found in maxillary implants than in mandibular. This was true for mesial (p = 0.013, Table 1), distal (p = 0.012, Table 2), and average bone loss (p = 0.006, Table 3). Conclusion: The results of this study suggest a relation between implant length and positioning and bone loss. Future studies will focus on the development of more clinical markers and assessment tools for failure.
植体术后颈椎倦怠的影响因素:回顾性分析
前言:本研究的目的是评估影响种植体颈椎骨健康的最大因素。我们完成了一项回顾性研究,并检查了各种因素。研究人员假设种植体的位置、品牌或长度对种植成功没有影响。方法:对来自乔治亚牙科学院(DCG)的患者进行回顾性电子图表回顾,研究人群包括2009年1月1日至2010年1月1日期间植入种植体的所有患者。这包括在这个学术机构放置的任何类型的牙科种植体,在放置种植体的多个部门中的任何一个。如果患者是由DCG以外的其他医生植入的,则排除在研究对象之外。检查的信息包括地点、品牌、时间、年龄、性别和并发症。结果:样本由67名符合条件的研究参与者的牙科记录中提取的数据组成。其中63例(94%)有骨质流失的数据,本文的所有结果均基于这63例患者。大多数参与者为女性(42/63,67%),年龄从41岁到88岁(平均68.6,标准差12.3,中位数70)。上颌种植体的骨质流失明显多于下颌骨种植体。这在近端(p = 0.013,表1)、远端(p = 0.012,表2)和平均骨质流失(p = 0.006,表3)中都是正确的。结论:本研究的结果表明种植体长度和定位与骨质流失之间存在关系。未来的研究将集中于开发更多的临床标志物和失败评估工具。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信