A distinguishable observation between survival and success rate outcome of hydroxyapatite-coated implants in 5-10 years in function.
OBJECTIVE
To differentiate between the survival and success definitions of functional hydroxyapatite (HA)-coated implant prosthesis.


METHODS
A total of 248 implants (62 patients), 5-10 years in function, were evaluated. The implant distribution length was 8 mm (6.5%), 10 mm (29.4%), 13 mm (30.2%) and 15 mm (33.9%). The diameter was 3.25 mm (60.1%) and 4 mm (39.9%). Probing depth (PD), gingival index (GI), height of keratinized mucosa (KM) and recession (REC) were measured. Periapical radiographs were taken to estimate the amount of crestal bone resorption (BL), mesially and distally, with the aid of a millimetric-scaled magnifying glass (x 8). Only implants that fulfilled the success rate criteria were considered as successful. All other functional implants were assigned to the non-successful group. All functional implant prostheses were defined as survival ones.


RESULTS
The accumulative survival rate after 5 and 10 years was 94.4% and 92.8%, respectively. Accumulative success rates were 89.9% and 54%, respectively. Implants 13 and 15 mm in length (97.9% and 96.4%, respectively) had the highest survival rate, which was higher over implants 8 and 10 mm in length (75%, P<0.01 and 88.2%, respectively). The survival rate of 4 mm diameter implants compared with 3.25 mm was 96.5% and 90.3%, respectively (P=0.019). The average BL was 1.7, 0.92 and 2.79 mm for the survival, successful and non-successful defined implant groups. PD was 3.26, 2.79 and 4 mm and GI was 0.96, 0.75 and 1.57, respectively. These measurements were statistically different between implant groups. KM and REC measurements showed similar scoring for all groups. A correlation was shown between successful and non-successful implants on the score of GI and PD (P<0.001 in both).


CONCLUSIONS
A distinguishable observation between survival and success rate was noted particularly in long-term observations. Implant length and diameter have an influence on the survival rate. Clinical parameter scores expressed an influence on the defined implant status.
Artzi
Zvi
Z
Department of Periodontology, The Maurice and Gabriela Goldschleger School of Dental Medicine, Tel Aviv University, Tel Aviv, Israel. zviartzi@post.tau.ac.il
Carmeli
Guy
G
Kozlovsky
Avital
A
D000328:Adult; D000368:Aged; D000369:Aged, 80 and over; D016301:Alveolar Bone Loss / Q000209:etiology; D020099:Coated Materials, Biocompatible; D003758:Dental Implantation, Endosseous; D015921:Dental Implants / Q000009:adverse effects; D017267:Dental Prosthesis Design; D019232:Dental Restoration Failure; D017886:Durapatite; D005260:Female; D005500:Follow-Up Studies; D005889:Gingival Recession / Q000209:etiology; D006801:Humans; D008297:Male; D008875:Middle Aged; D010512:Periodontal Index; D012189:Retrospective Studies; D016019:Survival Analysis; D016896:Treatment Outcome
D020099:Coated Materials, Biocompatible; D015921:Dental Implants; D017886:Durapatite