PulseExploreJournal ClubDebatesTrendingResearchersJournals
Instagram
HomeExploreJournal ClubTrending
Synapse
⌘+K
Synapse
March 1, 2008Implant Dentistry1,022 citations

Implant Success, Survival, and Failure: The International Congress of Oral Implantologists (ICOI) Pisa Consensus Conference

View Full Paper
CMCarl E. MischMPMorton L. PerelHWHom‐Lay Wang

Key Points

  • To update and define standardized clinical criteria and a comprehensive health scale for evaluating the success, survival, and failure of endosteal root-form dental implants.
  • Expert consensus process conducted during the International Congress of Oral Implantologists (ICOI) Consensus Conference in Pisa, Italy (October 2007).
  • Adaptation and modification of clinical indices traditionally developed for natural teeth to match the unique structural and biomechanical properties of endosteal implants.
  • Establishment of the ICOI Pisa Health Scale, which defines distinct clinical tiers ranging from optimal implant success to compromised survival and absolute failure.
  • Identification of functional prosthetic load support and acceptable clinical esthetics as mandatory baseline criteria for implant success.

Abstract

The primary function of a dental implant is to act as an abutment for a prosthetic device, similar to a natural tooth root and crown. Any success criteria, therefore, must include first and foremost support of a functional prosthesis. In addition, although clinical criteria for prosthetic success are beyond the scope of this article, patient satisfaction with the esthetic appearance of the implant restoration is necessary in clinical practice. The restoring dentist designs and fabricates a prosthesis similar to one supported by a tooth, and as such often evaluates and treats the dental implant similarly to a natural tooth. Yet, fundamental differences in the support system between these entities should be recognized. The purpose of this article is to use a few indices developed for natural teeth as an index that is specific for endosteal root-form implants. This article is also intended to update and upgrade what is purported to be implant success, implant survival, and implant failure. The Health Scale presented in this article was developed and accepted by the International Congress of Oral Implantologists Consensus Conference for Implant Success in Pisa, Italy, October 2007.

Ask AI
Helpful
Bookmark
Share
View Full Paper

Cite This Study

Misch et al. (2008) studied this question.

synapsesocial.com/papers/69daad2daae38ff6ad8359bahttps://doi.org/10.1097/id.0b013e3181676059
Ask AI
Helpful
Bookmark
Share
View Full Paper

Also Consider

Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context:

  1. 1Clinical outcomes of 3–5 years follow-up of immediate implant placement in posterior teeth: a prospective study2024 · 10 citations
  2. 2Clinical-statistical study on oral rehabilitation methods using dental implants2024 · 1 citations
  3. 3Evaluation and assessment of the survival of tooth implant supported prosthesis in tooth and implant supported rehabilitation cases with metal frameworks2024 · 3 citations
  4. 4Clinical Evaluation of the Long-Term Survival and Success Rates of Different Types of Implant-Supported Prostheses2024 · 2 citations
  5. 5Long-term Outcomes of Tooth-implant Supported Prostheses – A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis2026