Affiliation:
1. Prosthetic Dental Science Department, Faculty of Dentistry, Najran University, Najran 66462, Saudi Arabia
2. Lab of Aseer Central Hospital, Ministry of Health, Riyadh 11595, Saudi Arabia
Abstract
The purpose of this outcome audit is to evaluate the influence of the clinicians’ experience on the outcome of dental implants. In addition, it is to identify the associated risk factors that might influence the success and survival of these implants. Methodology: The records of patients treated with SLA/SLActive Straumann implants were screened. This enabled us to have a minimum of 12 months of follow-up. Eligible patients, according to the inclusion criteria, were contacted and invited to undergo a follow-up assessment. Success was accounted for and defined in a comprehensive manner by considering four different categories: implant perspective, peri-implant soft tissue perspective, prosthetic perspective, and patient satisfaction. The patient investigations included a clinical examination of the implant mobility, suppuration, width of keratinized mucosa, probing depth, plaque accumulation, prosthetic complications, and patient satisfaction. In addition, a periapical radiograph was taken to evaluate bone loss and peri-implant radiolucency. The data were analysed using SPSS version 26. Results: Thirty-eight patients with 84 SLA/SLActive Straumann implants were available for the assessment. The mean age of the patients at implant surgery was 49.05 ± 13.19 years. Over the mean follow-up period of 26 months, no implant fractures were noted. Overall, eight implants were considered failures (9.5%). Two out of six patients with a history of periodontitis (HoP) and two out of five smokers exhibited failed implants. The patients’ satisfaction responses showed that all the responses were statistically higher than the test median value of three. The median value of general satisfaction using a visual analogue scale was 9 out of 10. Conclusions: The implants placed on partially and fully edentulous patients revealed high survival and success rates (100% and 90.5%, respectively) at a mean follow-up time of 26 months. It can be concluded that the implant practise among trainees in the programme is satisfactory. A history of periodontitis and a lack of patient compliance with supportive periodontal therapy in some cases have been shown to be risk factors associated with increased implant failure, mainly peri-implantitis.
Subject
Health Information Management,Health Informatics,Health Policy,Leadership and Management
Reference40 articles.
1. Long-term survival and success of oral implants in the treatment of full and partial arches: A 7-year prospective study with the ITI dental implant system;Romeo;Int. J. Oral Maxillofac. Implant.,2004
2. A 5-year prospective clinical and radiographic study of non-submerged dental implants;Weber;Clin. Oral Implant. Res.,2000
3. Oral implant treatment in posterior partially edentulous jaws: A 5-year follow-up report;Jemt;Int. J. Oral Maxillofac. Implant.,1993
4. A controlled clinical trial of implant-retained mandibular overdentures; five-years’ results of clinical aspects and aftercare of IMZ implants and Brånemark implants;Meijer;Clin. Oral Implant. Res.,2000
5. 10-Year Survival and Success Rates of 511 Titanium Implants with a Sandblasted and Acid-Etched Surface: A Retrospective Study in 303 Partially Edentulous Patients;Buser;Clin. Implant. Dent. Relat. Res.,2012