Volume 38 -
J Dent Med-tums 2025, 38 - : 0-0 |
Back to browse issues page
Download citation:
BibTeX | RIS | EndNote | Medlars | ProCite | Reference Manager | RefWorks
Send citation to:
BibTeX | RIS | EndNote | Medlars | ProCite | Reference Manager | RefWorks
Send citation to:
Zare Mehrjardi M H, Hooshmand S, Hatami M. Evaluating the frequency of dental implants failure before and after prosthetic loading in several dental clinics in Yazd during 2018-2023. J Dent Med-tums 2025; 38 : 19
URL: http://jdm.tums.ac.ir/article-1-6324-en.html
URL: http://jdm.tums.ac.ir/article-1-6324-en.html
1- Assistant Professor, Department of Dental Prosthodontics, School of Dentistry, Shahid Sadoughi University of Medical Sciences, Yazd, Iran
2- Dentist, School of Dentistry, Shiraz University of Medical Sciences, Shiraz, Iran
2- Dentist, School of Dentistry, Shiraz University of Medical Sciences, Shiraz, Iran
Abstract: (701 Views)
Background and Aims: Despite significant advancements in rehabilitation of edentulism with implants, complications such as implant failure before and after prosthetic loading remain concerns. This study aimed to evaluate the frequency of dental implant failure before and after prosthetic loading in some of Yazd dental clinics between 2018 and 2023.
Materials and Methods: In this descriptive cross-sectional study, 1060 patients’ files from three public dental clinics were reviewed. These patients were treated by dental implants between April 2018 and June 2023. The collected data included patients’ age and gender, implant diameter, brand, and placement site, type of prosthesis, and fixture failure after surgical and prosthetic phases. Data were statistically analyzed by independent t-tests and chi-square tests.
Results: The mean age of patients was 55.25 ± 12.37 years and 56.3% were female. The frequency of overall implant failure was 3.4%. The implant failure rate after prosthetic loading was 2.8% in females and 2.3% in males (P=0.47). This rate was 2% and 1.9% for maxillary and mandibular implants, respectively (P=0.5). This amount was 2.4% in molar areas,1.7% and 1.8% in premolar and anterior regions, respectively (P=0.8). Implant failure rate was 1.3% in overdentures, 5.9% in cement-retained, and 3.2% in screw-retained prosthesis (P<0.001). This amount for implants with a diameter less than 3.75 mm was 2.6% and for those with a diameter more than 4.5 mm was 3.7% (P<0.001). Implants with a diameter less than 3.75 mm had a 2.6% failure rate, whereas those with a diameter greater than 4.5 mm had a 3.7% failure rate (P<0.001). The implants failure rate was 1.6% for Dio brand and 2.5% for Dentis (P=0.5).
Conclusion: The overall implant failure rate in this study was 3.4%, of which 1.5% occurred before and 1.9% occurred after prosthetic loading. The frequency of implant failure after loading was significantly associated with the implant diameter and prosthesis type. This was not related to the patient's gender, implant site, or the implant brand.
Materials and Methods: In this descriptive cross-sectional study, 1060 patients’ files from three public dental clinics were reviewed. These patients were treated by dental implants between April 2018 and June 2023. The collected data included patients’ age and gender, implant diameter, brand, and placement site, type of prosthesis, and fixture failure after surgical and prosthetic phases. Data were statistically analyzed by independent t-tests and chi-square tests.
Results: The mean age of patients was 55.25 ± 12.37 years and 56.3% were female. The frequency of overall implant failure was 3.4%. The implant failure rate after prosthetic loading was 2.8% in females and 2.3% in males (P=0.47). This rate was 2% and 1.9% for maxillary and mandibular implants, respectively (P=0.5). This amount was 2.4% in molar areas,1.7% and 1.8% in premolar and anterior regions, respectively (P=0.8). Implant failure rate was 1.3% in overdentures, 5.9% in cement-retained, and 3.2% in screw-retained prosthesis (P<0.001). This amount for implants with a diameter less than 3.75 mm was 2.6% and for those with a diameter more than 4.5 mm was 3.7% (P<0.001). Implants with a diameter less than 3.75 mm had a 2.6% failure rate, whereas those with a diameter greater than 4.5 mm had a 3.7% failure rate (P<0.001). The implants failure rate was 1.6% for Dio brand and 2.5% for Dentis (P=0.5).
Conclusion: The overall implant failure rate in this study was 3.4%, of which 1.5% occurred before and 1.9% occurred after prosthetic loading. The frequency of implant failure after loading was significantly associated with the implant diameter and prosthesis type. This was not related to the patient's gender, implant site, or the implant brand.
Article number: 19
Type of Study: Research |
Subject:
prosthodontics
Send email to the article author
| Rights and Permissions | |
 |
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License. |
