Statement of the problem: Most of the clinical documentation of implant success and survival published in the literature have been issued by either experienced teams from university settings involving strict patient selection criteria or from seasoned private practitioners. By contrast, studies focusing on implants placed and rehabilitated by inexperienced post-graduate students are scarce. Purpose: To record failure rates and identify the contributing factors to implant failure and marginal bone loss (MBL) of implants placed and rehabilitated by inexperienced post-graduate students at the one-year follow-up. Material and Methods: A prospective cohort study was conducted on study participants scheduled for implant therapy at the International University of Catalonia. An experienced mentor determined the treatment plan in accordance with the need of each participant who signed an informed consent. All surgeries and prosthetic rehabilitation were performed by the post-graduate students. Implant failure rate, contributors to implant failure, and MBL were investigated among 24 variables related to patient health, local site, and implant and prosthetic characteristics. The risk of implant failure was analyzed with a simple binary logistic regression model with generalized equation equations (GEE) models, obtaining unadjusted odds ratios (OR). The relationship between MBL and the other independent variables was studied by simple linear regression estimated with GEE models and the Wald chi2 test. Results: One hundred and thirty dental implants have been placed and rehabilitated by post-graduate students. Five implants failed before loading and none after restoration delivery; survival and success rates were 96.15% and 94.62%, respectively. None of the investigated variables significantly affected the implant survival rate. At the one-year follow-up, the mean (SD) MBL was 0.53 (0.39) mm. The following independent variables significantly affected the MBL: Diabetes, implant depth placement. The width of keratinized tissue (KT) and probing depth (PD) above 3 mm were found to be good indicators of MBL, with each additional mm of probing depth resulting in 0.11 mm more MBL. Conclusion: The survival and success rates of dental implants placed and rehabilitated by inexperienced post-graduate students at the one-year follow-up were high. No contributing factor was identified regarding implant failure. However, several factors significantly affected MBL: Diabetes, implant depth placement, PD, and width of KT. Clinical Implications: Survival and success rates of dental implants placed and rehabilitated by inexperienced post-graduate students were high at the one-year follow-up, similar to experienced practitioners. No contributing factors were identified regarding implant failure; however, several factors significantly affected MBL: Diabetes, implant depth placement, PD, and KM.
Rehabilitation using dental implants following closure of large alveolar cleft defect by HYDIS-TB appliance: One-year follow-up
