Tasa de supervivencia de implantes cortos y largos en población chilena.
Abstract
Introducción: El uso de implantes cortos, se asocia a tasas de supervivencia menores que a las de implantes largos. Sin embargo estudios recientes muestran resultados disímiles. El objetivo de este trabajo es evaluar la supervivencia de implantes cortos y largos durante un período de 12 años. Metodología: Estudio de supervivencia de una cohorte retrospectiva, en una muestra de 78 individuos desdentados tratados consecutivamente cada uno con implantes cortos y largos entre 1998 y el 2008, siguiendo el protocolo Branemark, insertándose 548 implantes (Branemark Sistem); 396 largos (>10 mm. con un diámetro de 3,75- 4,0 mm.) y 152 implantes cortos (<8,5 mm. con un diámetro de 3,75- 4,0 mm.). En 377 implantes, la superficie fue maquinada, y en 171 oxidizada. El análisis de los datos se realizó con el software SPSS 15.0. Una p<0,05 se consideró significativa. Resultados: La tasa de supervivencia para los implantes cortos fue de 77%; mientras para los implantes largos fue un 94.9%. la comparación entre ambas mediante el test de Mantel y Cox resultó significativa. Conclusiones: Aparentemente la longitud implantes se relaciona con su supervivencia. Estudios prospectivos deberían focalizarse en determinar factores de riesgo en falla de oseointegración.
Palabras clave: implante, supervivencia, fracaso, longitud, Chile.
Background: The use of short dental implants is often related with lower survival rates than the larger ones. However recent studies have reported dissimilar results. Aim of this study is to evaluate survival of long and short implants over a period of 12 years. Methods: Survival study of a retrospective cohort in a sample of 78 consecutively treated edentulous individuals each ones with long and short implants between 1997 and 2009, following the Branemark protocol, 548 implants were inserted (Branemark System), 396 long (>10 mm. with a diameter of 3.75 to 4.0 mm.) and 152 short implants (<8.5 mm. with a diameter of 3.75 to 4.0 mm.). In 377 implants, the surface was machined and oxidized at 171. Data analysis was performed with SPSS 15.0 software. And p <0.05 was considered significant. Results: The survival rate for short implants was 77%, while for long implants was 94.9%. And the comparison between them by means the Mantel & Cox test was significant. Conclusions: Apparently implant length is related to survival. Prospective studies should focus on identifying risk factors for failure of osseointegration.
Keywords: implant, survival, failure, length, Chile.
References
Romeo E, Chiapasco M, Ghisolfi M, Vogel G. Long-term clinical effectiveness of oral implants in the treatment of partial edentulism. Seven-year life table analysis of a prospective study with ITI dental implants system used for single-tooth restorations. Clin Oral Implants Res 2002; 13(2): 133-43.
Misch CE, Steigenga J, Barboza E, Misch-Dietsh F, Cianciola LJ, Kazor C. Short dental implants in posterior partial edentulism: a multicenter retrospective 6-year case series study. J Periodontology 2006; 77: 1340-47.
Renouard F, Nisand D. Impact of implant length and diameter on survival rates. Clin Oral Imp Res 2006; 17(suppl.2): 35-51.
Tawil G, Younan R. Clinical evaluation of short, machined-surface implants followed for 12 to 92 months. Int J Oral Maxilofac Implants 2003; 18: 894-901.
Anitua E, Orive G, Aguirre JJ, Andía I. Five-year clinical evaluation of short implants placed in posterior areas: a retrospective study. J Periodontol 2008; 79: 42-48.
Montes CC, Pereira FA, Thomé G, Alves ED, Acedo RV, de Souza JR, Melo AC, Trevilatto PC. Failing factors asociated with osseointegrated dental implant loss. Implant Dent 2007; 16(4): 404-12.
Lelkholm U, Gunne J, Henry P, Higushi K, Linden U, Bergstrom C, Steenberghe D. Survival of the Branemark implant in partially edentulous jaws: a 10-year prospective. Multicenter study. Int J Oral Maxilofac Implants 1999; 14 : 639-645.
Goodacre CJ, Bernal G, Runcharasseaeng K, Kan JYK. Clinical complications implants and implant prostheses. J Prosthet. Dent 2003; 90: 121-132.
Esposito M, Hirsch JM, Lekholm U, Thomsen P. Biological factors contributing to failures of osseointegrated oral implants (I). Success criteria and epidemiology. Euro J Oral Sci 1998; 106: 527-51.
Esposito M, Hirsch JM, Lekholm U, Thomsen P. Biological factors contributing to failures of osseointegrated oral implants (II). Etiophatogenesis. Euro J Oral Sci 1998; 106: 721-64.
Anitua E. Enhancement of osseointegration by generating a dinamic implant surface. J Oral Implantol 2006; 32: 72-76.
Olate S, Lyrio MC, De Moraes M, Mazonetto R, Fernandes RW. Influence of diameter and length of implant on early dental implant failure. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2010; 68(2): 414-19
Feldman S, Boitel N, Weng D, Kohles SS, Stach RM. Five year survival distribution of short-length (10mm. or less) machined surface and osseotite implants. Clin Implant Dent Rel Res 2004; 6: 16-23.
Winkler S; Morris HF, Ochi S. Implant survival to 36 months as related to length and diameter. Ann Periodontol 2000; 5: 22-31.
Das Neves FD, Fones D, Bernardes SR, Do Prado CJ, Neto AJ. Short implants - An analysis of longitudinal studies. Int J Oral Maxilofac Implants 2006; 21 (1): 86-93.
Romeo E, Lops D, Margutti E, Ghisolfi M, Chiapasco M, Vogel G. Long-term survival and success of oral implants in the treatment of full and partial arches : A 7-year prospective study with the ITI dental implant sistem. Int J Oral Maxilofac Implants 2004; 19: 247-259.
This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY 4.0). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms. © 2024.
