title: Implant survival to 36 months as related to length and diameter.
abstract: BACKGROUND
  It is generally accepted that diameter and length of an endosseous dental implant and its stability at placement are critical factors in achieving and maintaining osseointegration. In the event of slight implant mobility at placement, the conventional or accepted treatment is to place a longer implant and/or one of wider diameter. This manuscript presents stability and survival/failure data for implants of different diameters and lengths following 36 months post-placement, as well as crestal bone loss data between placement and uncovering.
  
  
  METHODS
  A subset of the Dental Implant Clinical Research Group's database was used to study the 3-year survival and stability of various implant lengths (7 mm, 8 mm, 10 mm, 13 mm, and 16 mm) and diameters (3 mm+ and 4 mm+). Placement to uncovering crestal bone loss was also determined. The implants were generally representative of those available for clinical use (screws, basket, grooved, hydroxy-apatite-coated, CP-Ti, Ti-alloy). The study protocol specified that the implants be randomized to various jaw regions to accomplish the primary goals of the study--the comparison of each implant design's overall survival. A total of 2,917 implants were placed, restored, and followed. Data for all 3 mm to 3.9 mm diameter implants were pooled into a "3+" group, and the 4 mm to 4.9 mm diameter implants into a "4+" mm group. No attempt was made to look at the influence of any other variables on survival outcomes. The possible influence of clustering on survival was taken into consideration.
  
  
  RESULTS
  The 3+ mm group had a mean stability (PTV) of -3.8 (SD = 2.9), and the 4+ group had a mean PTV of -4.4 (SD = 2.7) (P < 0.05). The PTVs for implant lengths ranged from -2.9 (SD = 2.8) for 7 mm lengths to -3.9 (SD = 2.9) for 16 mm lengths (P < 0.05). Survival to 36 months was 90.7% for the 3+ diameter and 94.6% for the 4+ group (P = 0.01). Survival ranged from 66.7% for the 7 mm implants to 96.4% for 16 mm implants (P = 0.001). Outcomes did not change when clustering was considered, although the P value decreased slightly.
  
  
  CONCLUSIONS
  The results indicate that: 1) shorter implants had statistically lower survival rates as compared with longer implants; 2) 3+ mm diameter implants had a lower survival rate as compared with 4+ mm implants; 3) 3+ mm diameter implants are less stable (more positive PTVs) than 4+ mm implants; and 4) there was no significant difference in crestal bone loss for the two different implant diameters between placement and uncovering.
authors.affiliation: Department of Restorative Dentistry, Temple University, School of Dentistry, Philadelphia, PA, USA.
authors.forename: S
authors.initials: S
authors.lastname: Winkler
authors.forename: H F
authors.initials: HF
authors.lastname: Morris
authors.forename: S
authors.initials: S
authors.lastname: Ochi
mesh_terms: D000497:Alloys; D016301:Alveolar Bone Loss / Q000209:etiology; D000704:Analysis of Variance; D016009:Chi-Square Distribution; D016000:Cluster Analysis; D020099:Coated Materials, Biocompatible; D016001:Confidence Intervals; D003722:Dental Alloys; D015921:Dental Implants; D017267:Dental Prosthesis Design; D019232:Dental Restoration Failure; D017886:Durapatite; D005500:Follow-Up Studies; D006801:Humans; D016015:Logistic Models; D016348:Osseointegration; D013499:Surface Properties; D016019:Survival Analysis; D014025:Titanium; D016896:Treatment Outcome
chemical_list: D000497:Alloys; D020099:Coated Materials, Biocompatible; D003722:Dental Alloys; D015921:Dental Implants; C031462:titanium alloy (TiAl6V4); D017886:Durapatite; D014025:Titanium