Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
OBJECTIVES: To identify risk factors for early failure of immediately placed implants in molar regions associated with three bone regenerative techniques. METHODS: Ninety-two patients (44 women and 48 men; mean age 50 years, 35 smokers and 57 non-smokers) in need of a single implant crown to replace a molar were included. After placing the implant, patients were randomized to one of three treatment groups for bone reconstruction of remaining periimplant defects: Autologous bone (AB) chips, Ossix membrane (OM) or a combination of AB chips and OM. The implant was submerged, and after 4 months of healing a re-entry surgery was made to connect a healing abutment. Implants with a dehiscence on ≥2 sites (mesial/distal/oral/buccal) together with ≥50% visible threads, were judged as failures. A series of simple logistic regression analyses were performed to identify risk factors for failure among the following independent variables: sex, jaw, smoking status, plaque, bleeding on probing, fistula, extraction reason, mean initial periimplant defect size, treatment group, implant length, buccal bone dehiscence (BBD), soft-tissue dehiscence and infection. The identified risk factors entered a multiple logistic regression analysis. RESULTS: Fifteen implants failed before abutment operation (13 explantations/two non-osseointegrated). Treatment group had no impact on failure. Risk factors for failure were: Smoking >10 cigarettes/day (odds ratio [OR]=9.29, confidence interval [CI]=1.21-71.16), BBD (OR=11.43, CI=1.34-97.74) and infection (OR=36.7, CI=2.75-489.31). CONCLUSIONS: Implants placed immediately after extraction of a molar were associated with a high risk for failure at abutment operation. There was no difference in failure rate between three bone reconstructive techniques.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Urban et al. (2011) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: