scholarly journals CORR Insights®: Restoration of the Hip Center During THA Performed for Protrusio Acetabuli Is Associated With Better Implant Survival

2013 ◽  
Vol 471 (10) ◽  
pp. 3260-3261 ◽  
Author(s):  
Malcolm L. Ecker
Keyword(s):  
Implant Survival ◽  
Protrusio Acetabuli

Survival of Short and Ultra-Short Locking-Taper Implants Supporting Single Crowns in the Posterior Mandible: A 3-Year Retrospective Study

2020 ◽  
Vol 46 (4) ◽  
pp. 396-406 ◽  
Author(s):  
Giorgio Lombardo ◽  
Annarita Signoriello ◽  
Miguel Simancas-Pallares ◽  
Mauro Marincola ◽  
Pier Francesco Nocini
Keyword(s):  
Retrospective Study ◽  
Bone Loss ◽  
Contact Point ◽  
Implant Survival ◽  
Point Position ◽  
Crestal Bone Loss ◽  
Short Implants ◽  
Single Crown ◽  
Bone To Implant Contact ◽  
Single Crowns

The purpose of this retrospective study was to determine survival and peri-implant marginal bone loss of short and ultra-short implants placed in the posterior mandible. A total of 98 patients received 201 locking-taper implants between January 2014 and January 2015. Implants were placed with a 2-stage approach and restored with single crowns. Clinical and radiographic examinations were performed at 3-year recall appointments. At that time, the proportion of implant survival by length, and variations of crestal bone levels (mean crestal bone loss and mean apical shift of the “first bone-to-implant contact point” position) were assessed. Significance level was set at 0.05. The total number of implants examined 36 months after loading included: 71 implants, 8.0 mm in length; 82 implants, 6.0 mm in length; and 48 implants, 5.0 mm in length. Five implants failed. The overall proportion of survival was 97.51%, with 98.59% for the 8.0-mm implants, 97.56% for the 6.0-mm implants, and 95.83% for the 5.0-mm implants. No statistically significant differences were found among the groups regarding implant survival (P = .73), mean crestal bone loss (P = .31), or mean apical shift of the “first bone-to-implant contact point” position (P = .36). Single-crown short and ultra-short implants may offer predictable outcomes in the atrophic posterior mandibular regions, though further investigations with longer follow-up evaluations are necessary to validate our results.

Current literature review on methods for measuring the stability of osseointegrable implants.

2020 ◽  
Vol 2 (4) ◽  
pp. 64-78
Author(s):  
Noha El-Wassefy ◽  
Lars Sennerby ◽  
Dhoom SIngh Mehta ◽  
Thiago De Santana Santos
Keyword(s):  
Literature Review ◽  
Current Literature ◽  
Implant Survival ◽  
Implant Stability ◽  
Implant Placement ◽  
Factors Influencing ◽  
Case Documentation ◽  
Bone To Implant Contact ◽  
The Stability

“Osseointegration” as formulated by Alberktson is crucial for implant survival and success. Osseointegration is a measure of implant stability. Measuring implant stability helps to arrive at decisions as to loading of an implant, allows choice of protocol on a patient to patient basis and provides better case documentation. A successful implant reflects good bone to implant contact and is determined by implant stability both primary and secondary. Implant stability is achieved at two different stages – primary (immediately after implant placement) and secondary (3-4 months after implant placement). Implant stability has been confirmed to affect the process of osseointegration and therefore is essential to understand the methods to measure implant stability and factors influencing. Various methods are developed to assess implant stability which suggests the prognosis of an implant.

scholarly journals Simultaneous implant placement with autogenous onlay bone grafts: a systematic review and meta-analysis

2021 ◽  
Vol 7 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Guoqiang Ma ◽  
Chaoan Wu ◽  
Miaoting Shao
Keyword(s):  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Survival Rates ◽  
Bone Grafts ◽  
Implant Survival ◽  
Analysis Model ◽  
Implant Placement ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
Delayed Implant Placement ◽  
Onlay Grafts

AbstractSeveral authors have suggested that implants can be placed simultaneously with onlay bone grafts without affecting outcomes. Therefore, the purpose of this study was to answer the following clinical questions: (1) What are the outcomes of implants placed simultaneously with autogenous onlay bone grafts? And (2) is there a difference in outcomes between simultaneous vs delayed placement of implants with autogenous onlay bone grafts? Databases of PubMed, Embase, and Google Scholar were searched up to 15 November 2020. Data on implant survival was extracted from all the included studies (single arm and comparative) to calculate point estimates with 95% confidence intervals (CI) and pooled using the DerSimonian–Laird meta-analysis model. We also compared implant survival rates between the simultaneous and delayed placement of implants with data from comparative studies. Nineteen studies were included. Five of them compared simultaneous and delayed placement of implants. Dividing the studies based on follow-up duration, the pooled survival of implant placed simultaneously with onlay grafts after <2.5 years of follow-up was 93.1% (95% CI 82.6 to 97.4%) and after 2.5–5 years was 86% (95% CI 78.6 to 91.1%). Implant survival was found to be 85.8% (95% CI 79.6 to 90.3%) with iliac crest grafts and 95.7% (95% CI 83.9 to 93.0%) with intra-oral grafts. Our results indicated no statistically significant difference in implant survival between simultaneous and delayed placement (OR 0.43, 95% 0.07, 2.49, I2=59.04%). Data on implant success and bone loss were limited. Data indicates that implants placed simultaneously with autogenous onlay grafts have a survival rate of 93.1% and 86% after a follow-up of <2.5 years and 2.5–5years respectively. A limited number of studies indicate no significant difference in implant survival between the simultaneous and delayed placement of implants with onlay bone grafts. There is a need for randomized controlled trials comparing simultaneous and delayed implant placement to provide robust evidence.

scholarly journals Management of Schneiderian membrane perforations during maxillary sinus floor augmentation with lateral approach in relation to subsequent implant survival rates: a systematic review and meta-analysis

2021 ◽  
Vol 7 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Luis Alfredo Díaz-Olivares ◽  
Jorge Cortés-Bretón Brinkmann ◽  
Natalia Martínez-Rodríguez ◽  
José María Martínez-González ◽  
Juan López-Quiles ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Survival Rates ◽  
Lateral Approach ◽  
Implant Survival ◽  
Schneiderian Membrane ◽  
Membrane Perforation ◽  
Sinus Floor Augmentation ◽  
Maxillary Sinus Floor ◽  
Sinus Floor ◽  
Maxillary Sinus Floor Augmentation

Abstract Background This systematic review aimed to propose a treatment protocol for repairing intraoperative perforation of the Schneiderian membrane during maxillary sinus floor augmentation (MSFA) procedures with lateral window technique. In turn, to assess subsequent implant survival rates placed below repaired membranes compared with intact membranes and therefore determine whether membrane perforation constitutes a risk factor for implant survival. Material and methods This review was conducted according to PRISMA guidelines. Two independent reviewers conducted an electronic search for articles published between 2008 and April 30, 2020, in four databases: (1) The National Library of Medicine (MEDLINE/PubMed) via Ovid; (2) Web of Science (WOS); (3) SCOPUS; and (4) Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL); also, a complementary handsearch was carried out. The Newcastle-Ottawa Quality Assessment Scale was used to assess the quality of evidence in the studies reviewed. Results Seven articles fulfilled the inclusion criteria and were analyzed. A total of 1598 sinus lift surgeries were included, allowing the placement of 3604 implants. A total of 1115 implants were placed under previously perforated and repaired membranes, obtaining a survival rate of 97.68%, while 2495 implants were placed below sinus membranes that were not damaged during surgery, obtaining a survival rate of 98.88%. The rate of Schneiderian membrane perforation shown in the systematic review was 30.6%. In the articles reviewed, the most widely used technique for repairing perforated membranes was collagen membrane repair. Conclusions Schneiderian membrane perforation during MFSA procedures with lateral approach is not a risk factor for dental implant survival (p=0.229; RR 0.977; 95% CI 0.941-1.015). The knowledge of the exact size of the membrane perforation is essential for deciding on the right treatment plan.

scholarly journals Trends and developments in hip and knee arthroplasty technology

2021 ◽  
Vol 8 ◽  
pp. 205566832095204
Author(s):  
Martin Marsh ◽  
Simon Newman
Keyword(s):  
Knee Arthroplasty ◽  
Standard Of Care ◽  
Hip Resurfacing ◽  
Implant Survival ◽  
Dual Mobility ◽  
Joint Replacements ◽  
Robotic Assisted Surgery ◽  
Hip And Knee Arthroplasty ◽  
Hip Stems ◽  
Hip And Knee Surgery

The developments in hip and knee arthroplasty over recent years have aimed to improve outcomes, reduce complications and improve implant survival. This review describes some of the most interesting trends and developments in this important and fast-moving field. Notable developments have included ceramic hip resurfacing, mini hip stems, cementless knee replacement and the wider adoption of the dual mobility articulation for hip arthroplasty. Advances in additive manufacturing and the surface modification of joint replacements offer increasing options for more challenging arthroplasty cases. Robotic assisted surgery is one of the most interesting developments in hip and knee surgery. The recent growth in the use of this technology is providing data that will help determine whether this approach should become the standard of care for hip and knee arthroplasty in the future.

scholarly journals Long-Term Comparison of Survival and Marginal Bone of Implants with and without Sinus Augmentation in Maxillary Molars within the Same Patients: A 5.8- to 22-Year Retrospective Study

2021 ◽  
Vol 10 (7) ◽  
pp. 1360
Author(s):  
Won-Bae Park ◽  
Ji-Young Han ◽  
Kyung Lhi Kang
Keyword(s):  
Statistical Significance ◽  
Frailty Model ◽  
Implant Failure ◽  
Implant Survival ◽  
Marginal Bone Loss ◽  
Related Factors ◽  
Sinus Augmentation ◽  
Maxillary Molars ◽  
Posterior Maxilla

Maxillary sinus floor augmentation (MSFA) is widely used and considered a predictable procedure for implant placement. However, the influence of MSFA on implant survival and marginal bone loss (MBL) is still inconclusive. The purpose of this retrospective observational study is to evaluate the long-term genuine influence of MSFA on the survival and MBL of implants by comparing those with and without MSFA only in maxillary molars within the same patients. Thirty-eight patients (28 male and 10 female), with a total of 119 implants, received implants with and without MSFA, and were followed up for 5.8 to 22 years. Patient- and implant-related factors were assessed with a frailty model for implant survival and with generalized estimation equations (GEE) for MBL around the implant. No variables showed a statistical significance for implant failure in the frailty model. In GEE analysis for MBL, MSFA did not show any statistical significance. In conclusion, MSFA demonstrated no significant influence on implant failure and MBL in posterior maxilla in this study.

A registry study on radial head arthroplasties in the Netherlands: Indications, types and short-term survival

2021 ◽  
pp. 175857322098784
Author(s):  
Arno A Macken ◽  
Ante Prkić ◽  
Koen LM Koenraadt ◽  
Iris van Oost ◽  
Anneke Spekenbrink-Spooren ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Radial Head ◽  
Register Data ◽  
Implant Survival ◽  
Short Term ◽  
Term Survival ◽  
Arthroplasty Register ◽  
Common Indication ◽  
Radial Head Arthroplasty ◽  
Kaplan Meier ◽  
Short Term Survival

Background This study aims to use the Dutch Arthroplasty Register data to report an overview of the contemporary indications and implant designs, and report the short-term survival of radial head arthroplasty. Methods From the Dutch Arthroplasty Register, data on patient demographics, surgery and revision were extracted for radial head arthroplasties performed from January 2014 to December 2019. Implant survival was calculated using the Kaplan–Meier method. Results Two hundred fifty-eight arthroplasties were included with a median follow-up of 2.2 years. The most common indication was a fracture of the radial head (178, 69%). One hundred thirty-nine (68%) of the prostheses were of bipolar design, and the most commonly used implant type was the Radial Head System (Tornier; 134, 51%). Of the 258 included radial head arthroplasties, 16 were revised at a median of six months after surgery. Reason for revision was predominantly aseptic loosening (9). The overall implant survival was 95.8% after one year, 90.5% after three years and 89.5% after five years. Discussion For radial head arthroplasties, acute trauma is the most common indication and Radial Head System the most commonly used implant. The implant survival is 89.5% after five years.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document