Abstract：
OBJECTIVE: To investigate the long-term implant survival rate and marginal bone loss (MBL) of implants with different variables associated over an observational period of at least 20 years.
METHODS: Patients with at least one implant placed prior to 2001 were recalled and visited. Data on implant macro-design, prosthetic aspects, site distribution, and patient-related factors were collected. MBL was evaluated on intraoral X-rays and peri-implant soft tissue parameters were recorded. The patients were asked to fill out a questionnaire to evaluate their satisfaction with the treatment received. Descriptive statistics indicators were estimated. Analysis of variance and analysis of covariance models were used to investigate any differences in the MBL and peri-implant probing depth (PPD) among the variables. A chi-square analysis was performed to investigate any association between different types of prosthetic implant-supported rehabilitations and survival/success outcomes.
RESULTS: Forty-one (41) patients and 174 implants were included with a mean observational period of 23.3 ± 2.8 years. The implant survival and success rates were 96.5% and 83.3% respectively, while 3.5% of early failures were detected. The lowest success rates were observed for implants supporting fixed full-arch rehabilitations (71.05%) and overdenture rehabilitations (86.11%). A mean MBL of 1.81 ± 0.71 mm and a mean PPD of 3.38 ± 1.62 mm were recorded. The interaction between the collected data with MBL and PPD did not reveal any statistically significant differences between the variables (p > 0.05). A statistically significant difference was recorded when analyzing the association between the different types of prosthetic implant-supported rehabilitations and success rates (p = 0.014), with fixed and removable full-arch rehabilitations presenting with lower success rates. Answers to the questionnaire showed a generally high level of satisfaction.
CONCLUSIONS: Within the limits of this retrospective study and based on the results, an implant survival rate higher than 96% was observed after a mean observational period of 23.3 ± 2.8 years. Both the implant survival rate and MBL seemed stable after a mean observational period of 23.3 ± 2.8 years. Implants supporting fixed and removable full-arch rehabilitations seemed to present lower success rates over time. Implant rehabilitation seemed to provide patients with optimal long-term outcomes in terms of functional and psychological aspects.
METHODS: Patients with at least one implant placed prior to 2001 were recalled and visited. Data on implant macro-design, prosthetic aspects, site distribution, and patient-related factors were collected. MBL was evaluated on intraoral X-rays and peri-implant soft tissue parameters were recorded. The patients were asked to fill out a questionnaire to evaluate their satisfaction with the treatment received. Descriptive statistics indicators were estimated. Analysis of variance and analysis of covariance models were used to investigate any differences in the MBL and peri-implant probing depth (PPD) among the variables. A chi-square analysis was performed to investigate any association between different types of prosthetic implant-supported rehabilitations and survival/success outcomes.
RESULTS: Forty-one (41) patients and 174 implants were included with a mean observational period of 23.3 ± 2.8 years. The implant survival and success rates were 96.5% and 83.3% respectively, while 3.5% of early failures were detected. The lowest success rates were observed for implants supporting fixed full-arch rehabilitations (71.05%) and overdenture rehabilitations (86.11%). A mean MBL of 1.81 ± 0.71 mm and a mean PPD of 3.38 ± 1.62 mm were recorded. The interaction between the collected data with MBL and PPD did not reveal any statistically significant differences between the variables (p > 0.05). A statistically significant difference was recorded when analyzing the association between the different types of prosthetic implant-supported rehabilitations and success rates (p = 0.014), with fixed and removable full-arch rehabilitations presenting with lower success rates. Answers to the questionnaire showed a generally high level of satisfaction.
CONCLUSIONS: Within the limits of this retrospective study and based on the results, an implant survival rate higher than 96% was observed after a mean observational period of 23.3 ± 2.8 years. Both the implant survival rate and MBL seemed stable after a mean observational period of 23.3 ± 2.8 years. Implants supporting fixed and removable full-arch rehabilitations seemed to present lower success rates over time. Implant rehabilitation seemed to provide patients with optimal long-term outcomes in terms of functional and psychological aspects.
摘要：
目的：在至少20年的观察期内，研究具有不同变量的植入物的长期植入物生存率和边缘骨丢失（MBL）。
方法：在2001年之前放置了至少一个植入物的患者被召回并访问。植入物宏观设计数据，假肢方面，现场分布,并收集患者相关因素。在口内X射线上评估MBL，并记录植入物周围软组织参数。要求患者填写问卷以评估他们对所接受治疗的满意度。估计了描述性统计指标。方差分析和协方差模型分析用于研究变量之间MBL和植入物周围探测深度（PPD）的任何差异。进行卡方分析以调查不同类型的假体植入物支持的康复与生存/成功结果之间的任何关联。
结果：纳入了41例患者和174例植入物，平均观察期为23.3±2.8年。种植成活率和成功率分别为96.5%和83.3%,而3.5%的早期故障被检测到。支持固定全弓修复的植入物成功率最低（71.05％）和覆盖义齿修复（86.11％）。记录的平均MBL为1.81±0.71mm，平均PPD为3.38±1.62mm。收集的数据与MBL和PPD之间的相互作用没有显示出变量之间的任何统计学显著差异(p>0.05)。在分析不同类型的假体植入物支持的康复与成功率之间的关联时，记录了统计学上的显着差异（p=0.014），固定和可拆卸的全足弓修复成功率较低。问卷的答案显示总体上很高的满意度。
结论：在本回顾性研究的范围内，根据研究结果，平均观察期为23.3±2.8年后,植入物的存活率高于96%.在平均23.3±2.8年的观察期后，植入物的存活率和MBL似乎都稳定。随着时间的流逝，支持固定和可移动的全弓修复的植入物的成功率似乎较低。植入物康复似乎在功能和心理方面为患者提供了最佳的长期结果。
方法：在2001年之前放置了至少一个植入物的患者被召回并访问。植入物宏观设计数据，假肢方面，现场分布,并收集患者相关因素。在口内X射线上评估MBL，并记录植入物周围软组织参数。要求患者填写问卷以评估他们对所接受治疗的满意度。估计了描述性统计指标。方差分析和协方差模型分析用于研究变量之间MBL和植入物周围探测深度（PPD）的任何差异。进行卡方分析以调查不同类型的假体植入物支持的康复与生存/成功结果之间的任何关联。
结果：纳入了41例患者和174例植入物，平均观察期为23.3±2.8年。种植成活率和成功率分别为96.5%和83.3%,而3.5%的早期故障被检测到。支持固定全弓修复的植入物成功率最低（71.05％）和覆盖义齿修复（86.11％）。记录的平均MBL为1.81±0.71mm，平均PPD为3.38±1.62mm。收集的数据与MBL和PPD之间的相互作用没有显示出变量之间的任何统计学显著差异(p>0.05)。在分析不同类型的假体植入物支持的康复与成功率之间的关联时，记录了统计学上的显着差异（p=0.014），固定和可拆卸的全足弓修复成功率较低。问卷的答案显示总体上很高的满意度。
结论：在本回顾性研究的范围内，根据研究结果，平均观察期为23.3±2.8年后,植入物的存活率高于96%.在平均23.3±2.8年的观察期后，植入物的存活率和MBL似乎都稳定。随着时间的流逝，支持固定和可移动的全弓修复的植入物的成功率似乎较低。植入物康复似乎在功能和心理方面为患者提供了最佳的长期结果。
