Cargando…
What do sales data tell us about implant survival?
OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to evaluate the influence of implant diameter, length and shape on a surrogate parameter of implant survival; i.e. the implant return rate in a big data analysis. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A retrospective study was conducted and the factors influencing the success r...
Autores principales: | , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
Public Library of Science
2017
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5319692/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28222128 http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0171128 |
_version_ | 1782509415935508480 |
---|---|
author | Seemann, Rudolf Jirku, Alexander Wagner, Florian Wutzl, Arno |
author_facet | Seemann, Rudolf Jirku, Alexander Wagner, Florian Wutzl, Arno |
author_sort | Seemann, Rudolf |
collection | PubMed |
description | OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to evaluate the influence of implant diameter, length and shape on a surrogate parameter of implant survival; i.e. the implant return rate in a big data analysis. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A retrospective study was conducted and the factors influencing the success rates of 69,377 sold implants over a seven-year period were evaluated. The osseointegration program of a reseller provides reliable data of a single country. Implant loss rates were investigated using logistic regression models and regressed by implant type, diameter, and length. RESULTS: The return rate of 69,377 sold implants was 2.78% and comparable to implant loss rates in previous published prospective studies as its surrogate parameter. A total of 80% of implant returns had occurred within 157 days, and an additional 15% within 750.25 days. Diameters of 3.8 to 5.0mm showed the lowest return rates with its bottom in the 4.3mm implant whilst 6.0mm implants had significantly higher return rates. In comparison to the most sold implant length (13mm) shorter implants showed significantly higher early return rates. CONCLUSIONS: The study provides evidence that in cases of standard indications and sufficient bone, the use of screw typed dental implants with 3.8 or 4.3 diameter and 11 or 13 mm length shows the lowest implant return rates. Other implants may be selected only in specific indications. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-5319692 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2017 |
publisher | Public Library of Science |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-53196922017-03-03 What do sales data tell us about implant survival? Seemann, Rudolf Jirku, Alexander Wagner, Florian Wutzl, Arno PLoS One Research Article OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to evaluate the influence of implant diameter, length and shape on a surrogate parameter of implant survival; i.e. the implant return rate in a big data analysis. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A retrospective study was conducted and the factors influencing the success rates of 69,377 sold implants over a seven-year period were evaluated. The osseointegration program of a reseller provides reliable data of a single country. Implant loss rates were investigated using logistic regression models and regressed by implant type, diameter, and length. RESULTS: The return rate of 69,377 sold implants was 2.78% and comparable to implant loss rates in previous published prospective studies as its surrogate parameter. A total of 80% of implant returns had occurred within 157 days, and an additional 15% within 750.25 days. Diameters of 3.8 to 5.0mm showed the lowest return rates with its bottom in the 4.3mm implant whilst 6.0mm implants had significantly higher return rates. In comparison to the most sold implant length (13mm) shorter implants showed significantly higher early return rates. CONCLUSIONS: The study provides evidence that in cases of standard indications and sufficient bone, the use of screw typed dental implants with 3.8 or 4.3 diameter and 11 or 13 mm length shows the lowest implant return rates. Other implants may be selected only in specific indications. Public Library of Science 2017-02-21 /pmc/articles/PMC5319692/ /pubmed/28222128 http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0171128 Text en © 2017 Seemann et al http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited. |
spellingShingle | Research Article Seemann, Rudolf Jirku, Alexander Wagner, Florian Wutzl, Arno What do sales data tell us about implant survival? |
title | What do sales data tell us about implant survival? |
title_full | What do sales data tell us about implant survival? |
title_fullStr | What do sales data tell us about implant survival? |
title_full_unstemmed | What do sales data tell us about implant survival? |
title_short | What do sales data tell us about implant survival? |
title_sort | what do sales data tell us about implant survival? |
topic | Research Article |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5319692/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28222128 http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0171128 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT seemannrudolf whatdosalesdatatellusaboutimplantsurvival AT jirkualexander whatdosalesdatatellusaboutimplantsurvival AT wagnerflorian whatdosalesdatatellusaboutimplantsurvival AT wutzlarno whatdosalesdatatellusaboutimplantsurvival |