Performance of 1-Stage Dental Implants

Purpose: To evaluate long-term clinical performance of 1-stage dental implant prostheses at a single clinic, emphasizing clinical and demographic characteristics that affect implant survival. Materials and Methods: Dental records of all 308 patients (674 implants) treated with 1-stage implants at Mayo Clinic from October 1993 through May 2000 were reviewed from implant placement to last visit. Exposure and outcome variables affecting performance were collected separately to control bias in the data collection process. Additional confounding factors (age and sex) were adjusted with the stratified Cox proportional hazards model. Implant survival was determined by means of a Kaplan-Meier survival estimate. The log-rank test was used to determine the role of clinical and demographic variables in implant survival. The relative risk associated with the possible effect of clinical and demographic variables on implant survival was estimated with the Cox proportional hazards model. Results: The implant survival rate (n = 654 implants) was 97% (mean ± SD follow-up, 21.0 ± 18.8 months; range, 1 to 78 months). Performance bias was limited because nearly all patients were treated by 1 prosthodontist. Two implants failed after loading (6 and 9 months). The incidence of complications was less than 4%. Among the implant failures, use of heterogeneous bone graft was associated with 4.8 times more failures than was use of autogenous bone graft (P = .04). After augmentation, delaying implant placement for 5 to 6 months resulted in 8.6 times more failures than the rate after earlier placement (P .001). Discussion: Retrospective review of the clinical performance of a 1-stage dental implant system yielded a 97% survival rate, with no failures noted after 13 months. Prosthetic complications were low, especially for fixed implant prostheses. Conclusion: Clinical performance of 1-stage dental implant prostheses between 1993 and 2000 demonstrated a high level of predictability. (INT J ORAL MAXILLOFAC IMPLANTS 2003;18:399–405)