Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Many dental schools offer implant clinical training at the pre- and postdoctoral levels, but little has been published on the clinical outcomes of implants placed in those programs. A post-entry chart review was conducted of all Branemark and Taper-Lock implants placed in a university clinic by faculty-student teams. Case information was gathered on data reporting forms and entered into a computer spreadsheet program. Survival rates were calculated as percentages. Cumulative implant survival was 96% for all 303 implants placed. Eight of the 12 implants that failed were placed by 2 operators, only 1 of whom was in the early stages of implant training. Branemark implant survival was 94.9% (n = 198) at 36 months; failures occurred between stage 2 and 3 months (n = 8) in mandibles and after 12 months (n = 2) in maxillae. Taper-Lock implant survival was 98.1% (n = 105) at 24 months; no mandibular failures occurred, but maxillary failures occurred before stage 2 (n = 1) and after 12 months of loading (n = 1). Taper-Lock implants exhibited a slightly higher (3.2%) cumulative survival rate at 24 months compared to Branemark implants. Differences in the numbers of implants placed (105 vs 198) and follow-up times (24 months vs 36 months) may have skewed the comparative results of Taper-Lock and Branemark implants, respectively, in this study. Implant survival for both systems was similar at 24 months of follow-up, and clinician experience did not appear to be an influencing variable on implant survival.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Kohavi et al. (2004) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: