Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2023 Oct 17;38(5):963-975. doi: 10.11607/jomi.10258.
ABSTRACT
PURPOSE: To evaluate the survival rate (primary outcome) and the marginal bone loss (secondary outcome) of the OsseoSpeed EV Implants (Astra Tech Implant System, Dentsply Sirona Implants; hereinafter EV implants) used in a wide range of clinical scenarios and followed up to 8 years in a nonuniversity setting.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: All EV implants consecutively placed from 2013 to 2021 in a private dental clinic were included, and medical and radiologic records were retrospectively investigated. Independent reviewers collected 11 data types as potential influencing variables and measured the mesial and distal marginal bone levels to the nearest 0.5 mm on available radiographs, either panoramic or periapical. Tables of descriptive statistics were made at implant and patient levels. Univariate and multiple Cox regression models were adjusted for clustering effects and determined the hazard ratio (HR) and odds ratio (OR) for each independent variable collected.
RESULTS: The study sample consisted of 597 EV implants and 235 patients. During a mean follow-up of 42.1 ± 23 months (range: 10 to 94 months), 44 implants were lost (7.4%)-34 early (5.7%) and 10 late (1.7%)-in 38 patients (16.1%). The overall survival rate (SR) was 92.6% (CI: 90.5% to 94.7%), and the proportion of patients with all their implants surviving was 83.8% (CI: 79.1% to 88.5%). At the end of the study, the probability of survival of an implant that did not fail early was 98.2% (CI: 97.1% to 99.3%). Implant-level analysis identified two significant variables: implant diameter (HR 0.37, P = .009**) and immediate postextraction placement (HR 2.35, P = .025*). At the patient level, bruxism (OR = 3.29; P = .009**), history of periodontitis (OR = 2.18, P = .030*), and the number of implants placed (OR = 1.43; P = .001**) were found to be statistically significant. After removing dropouts and early failures from a sample of 528 implants, 412 (78%) had a marginal bone loss (MBL) ≤ 0 mm at the end of the observation time, and 106 surviving implants (22%) showed a mean MBL of 1.42 ± 1.08 mm (range: 0.25 to 6.75 mm).
CONCLUSIONS: An overall medium-term SR of the EV implants was 92.6%. Four of five EV implants showed a mid-term MBL ≤ 0 mm, and 91.86% of implants completed the observation period with an MBL < 2 mm. Thus, the EV implant system was shown to be a valid alternative for routine use in a nonuniversity setting. Clinicians should remember that there is no 100% implant survival in everyday practice and that bruxism, periodontitis, narrow-diameter implants, and immediate placement are risk factors for a higher failure rate.
PMID:37847838 | DOI:10.11607/jomi.10258
