{"title":"即刻与延迟植牙的影响因素及存活率:6年回顾性分析","authors":"Yanfei Cheng, Zhifen Lai, Weiguang Yu","doi":"10.3389/fdmed.2025.1563641","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>This retrospective cohort study aimed to compare survival rates between immediate (≤24 h post-extraction) and delayed (3-4 months post-extraction) dental implants and to identify patient- and site-specific risk factors for implant failure, with emphasis on anatomical site, sex, and osteoporosis.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We analyzed 1,500 implants (300 immediate, 1,200 delayed) from patients treated at the Guangdong Provincial Hospital of Traditional Chinese Medicine (2005-2023). Kaplan-Meier analysis evaluated cumulative survival rates over 72 months, with Cox regression modeling to assess predictors of failure. Propensity score matching (PSM) addressed baseline covariate imbalances.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Delayed implants exhibited significantly higher survival rates than immediate implants at 72 months (81.1% vs. 53.2%, <i>p</i> < 0.0001). Survival divergence intensified after 24 months, with delayed implants retaining 979 patients at risk vs. 202 for immediate implants. Mandibular sites consistently outperformed maxillary sites in both strategies (delayed: 88.5% vs. 72.2%; immediate: 70.5% vs. 40.7%, <i>p</i> < 0.0001). Male sex (HR: 1.64, 95% CI: 1.28-1.88; <i>p</i> < 0.001) and osteoporosis (HR: 2.50, 95% CI: 1.17-4.52; <i>p</i> = 0.024) emerged as independent risk factors, while tobacco use, diabetes, and hypertension showed no significant associations. PSM resolved most baseline imbalances, with post-matching standardized mean differences (SMD) <0.1 for key covariates.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Delayed implantation at 3-4 months post-extraction provides superior intermediate-term survival, particularly in mandibular sites. Male patients and individuals with osteoporosis face elevated failure risks, warranting tailored clinical protocols. While both strategies remain viable, delayed placement is recommended for high-risk populations to optimize long-term outcomes.</p>","PeriodicalId":73077,"journal":{"name":"Frontiers in dental medicine","volume":"6 ","pages":"1563641"},"PeriodicalIF":1.5000,"publicationDate":"2025-04-29","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12069371/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Influencing factors and survival rates in immediate vs. delayed dental implant placement: a six-year retrospective analysis.\",\"authors\":\"Yanfei Cheng, Zhifen Lai, Weiguang Yu\",\"doi\":\"10.3389/fdmed.2025.1563641\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>This retrospective cohort study aimed to compare survival rates between immediate (≤24 h post-extraction) and delayed (3-4 months post-extraction) dental implants and to identify patient- and site-specific risk factors for implant failure, with emphasis on anatomical site, sex, and osteoporosis.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We analyzed 1,500 implants (300 immediate, 1,200 delayed) from patients treated at the Guangdong Provincial Hospital of Traditional Chinese Medicine (2005-2023). Kaplan-Meier analysis evaluated cumulative survival rates over 72 months, with Cox regression modeling to assess predictors of failure. Propensity score matching (PSM) addressed baseline covariate imbalances.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Delayed implants exhibited significantly higher survival rates than immediate implants at 72 months (81.1% vs. 53.2%, <i>p</i> < 0.0001). Survival divergence intensified after 24 months, with delayed implants retaining 979 patients at risk vs. 202 for immediate implants. Mandibular sites consistently outperformed maxillary sites in both strategies (delayed: 88.5% vs. 72.2%; immediate: 70.5% vs. 40.7%, <i>p</i> < 0.0001). Male sex (HR: 1.64, 95% CI: 1.28-1.88; <i>p</i> < 0.001) and osteoporosis (HR: 2.50, 95% CI: 1.17-4.52; <i>p</i> = 0.024) emerged as independent risk factors, while tobacco use, diabetes, and hypertension showed no significant associations. PSM resolved most baseline imbalances, with post-matching standardized mean differences (SMD) <0.1 for key covariates.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Delayed implantation at 3-4 months post-extraction provides superior intermediate-term survival, particularly in mandibular sites. Male patients and individuals with osteoporosis face elevated failure risks, warranting tailored clinical protocols. While both strategies remain viable, delayed placement is recommended for high-risk populations to optimize long-term outcomes.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":73077,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Frontiers in dental medicine\",\"volume\":\"6 \",\"pages\":\"1563641\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.5000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-04-29\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12069371/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Frontiers in dental medicine\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.3389/fdmed.2025.1563641\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2025/1/1 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"eCollection\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"DENTISTRY, ORAL SURGERY & MEDICINE\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Frontiers in dental medicine","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3389/fdmed.2025.1563641","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"DENTISTRY, ORAL SURGERY & MEDICINE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
摘要
目的:本回顾性队列研究旨在比较即刻(拔牙后≤24小时)和延迟(拔牙后3-4个月)种植体的生存率,并确定患者和部位特异性种植体失败的危险因素,重点是解剖部位、性别和骨质疏松症。方法:我们分析了2005-2023年广东省中医院收治的1500例种植体(300例即刻种植体,1200例延期种植体)。Kaplan-Meier分析评估了72个月的累积生存率,并用Cox回归模型评估失败的预测因素。倾向评分匹配(PSM)解决了基线协变量失衡。结果:延迟种植的72个月生存率明显高于即刻种植(81.1% vs. 53.2%, p p p = 0.024)是独立的危险因素,而吸烟、糖尿病和高血压无显著关联。结论:拔牙后3-4个月延迟种植提供了优越的中期生存率,特别是在下颌骨部位。男性患者和骨质疏松症患者面临更高的衰竭风险,因此需要量身定制的临床方案。虽然这两种策略都是可行的,但建议对高危人群延迟放置,以优化长期效果。
Influencing factors and survival rates in immediate vs. delayed dental implant placement: a six-year retrospective analysis.
Objective: This retrospective cohort study aimed to compare survival rates between immediate (≤24 h post-extraction) and delayed (3-4 months post-extraction) dental implants and to identify patient- and site-specific risk factors for implant failure, with emphasis on anatomical site, sex, and osteoporosis.
Methods: We analyzed 1,500 implants (300 immediate, 1,200 delayed) from patients treated at the Guangdong Provincial Hospital of Traditional Chinese Medicine (2005-2023). Kaplan-Meier analysis evaluated cumulative survival rates over 72 months, with Cox regression modeling to assess predictors of failure. Propensity score matching (PSM) addressed baseline covariate imbalances.
Results: Delayed implants exhibited significantly higher survival rates than immediate implants at 72 months (81.1% vs. 53.2%, p < 0.0001). Survival divergence intensified after 24 months, with delayed implants retaining 979 patients at risk vs. 202 for immediate implants. Mandibular sites consistently outperformed maxillary sites in both strategies (delayed: 88.5% vs. 72.2%; immediate: 70.5% vs. 40.7%, p < 0.0001). Male sex (HR: 1.64, 95% CI: 1.28-1.88; p < 0.001) and osteoporosis (HR: 2.50, 95% CI: 1.17-4.52; p = 0.024) emerged as independent risk factors, while tobacco use, diabetes, and hypertension showed no significant associations. PSM resolved most baseline imbalances, with post-matching standardized mean differences (SMD) <0.1 for key covariates.
Conclusions: Delayed implantation at 3-4 months post-extraction provides superior intermediate-term survival, particularly in mandibular sites. Male patients and individuals with osteoporosis face elevated failure risks, warranting tailored clinical protocols. While both strategies remain viable, delayed placement is recommended for high-risk populations to optimize long-term outcomes.