Home | About us | Editorial board | Search | Ahead of print | Current issue | Archives | Submit article | Instructions| Reviewers

  Home Print this page Email this page Small font sizeDefault font sizeIncrease font size Users Online: 166    
Year : 2017  |  Volume : 7  |  Issue : 6  |  Page : 351-355

Factors affecting the survival rate of dental implants: A retrospective study

1 Department of Prosthodontics, DY Patil Dental School, Pune, Maharashtra, India
2 Department of Prosthodontics, Daswani Dental College, Kota, Rajasthan, India
3 Department of Prosthodontics, Mallareddy Institute of Dental Sciences, Hyderabad, Telangana, India
4 Department of Prosthodontics, Faculty of Dental Sciences, Siksha ‘O’ Anusandhan University, Bhubaneswar, Odisha, India
5 Department of Prosthodontics, Al-Azhar Dental College, Thodupuzha, Idukki, India
6 Department of Prosthodontics, MES Dental College, Perinthalmanna, Kerala, India

Correspondence Address:
Dr. Sonal Raikar
Department of Prosthodontics and Crown and Bridge, DY Patil Dental School, DY Patil Knowledge City, Lohegaon, Pune, Maharashtra
Login to access the Email id

Source of Support: None, Conflict of Interest: None

DOI: 10.4103/jispcd.JISPCD_380_17

Rights and Permissions

Aims and Objectives: Dental implants have emerged as new treatment modality for the majority of patients and are expected to play a significant role in oral rehabilitation in the future. The present study was conducted to assess various factors affecting the survival rate of dental implants. Materials and Methods: The present retrospective study was conducted in the Department of Prosthodontics. In this study, 5200 patients with dental implants which were placed during June 2008–April 2015 were included. Exclusion criteria were patients with hormonal imbalance, patients with chronic infectious disease, patients receiving immunosuppressive therapy, pregnant women, drug and alcohol addicts, and patients with severe periodontal diseases. Parameters such as name, age, gender, length of implant, diameter of implant, location of implant, and bone quality were recorded. Data were tabulated and statistically evaluated with IBM SPSS Statistics for Windows, Version 20.0., IBM Corp., Armonk, NY, USA. Results: Out of 5200 patients, 2800 were males and 2400 females. Maximum implants failures (55) were seen in age group above 60 years of age (males – 550, females –700). Age group <40 years (males – 750, females – 550) showed 20 failed implants. Age group 41–60 years (males – 1500, females – 1150) showed 45 failed implants. The difference was nonsignificant (P = 0.21). Maximum implant failure was seen in implants with length >11.5 mm (40/700) followed by implants with <10 mm (20/1650) and 10–11.5 mm (60/2850). The difference was significant (P < 0.05). Maximum implants failure (30/1000) was seen in implants with diameter <3.75 mm followed by implants with diameter >4.5 mm (16/1600) and implants with diameter 3.75–4.5 mm (50/2600). The Chi-square test showed significant results (P < 0.05). Mandibular posterior showed 3.3% implants failure, maxillary posterior revealed 2.2%, maxillary anterior showed 2.1%, and mandibular anterior showed 1% failure rate; this difference was significant (P < 0.05). Type I bone showed 0.3% implant failure, Type II showed 1.95%, Type III showed 3%, and Type IV revealed 0.8% failure rate; this difference was significant (P < 0.05). Conclusion: Age, length of implant, diameter of implant, bone quality, and region of implant are factors determining the survival rate of implants. We found that implant above 11.5 mm length, and with diameter <3.75 mm, placed in the mandibular posterior region, in Type III bone showed maximum failures.

Print this article     Email this article
 Next article
 Previous article
 Table of Contents

 Similar in PUBMED
   Search Pubmed for
   Search in Google Scholar for
 Related articles
 Citation Manager
 Access Statistics
 Reader Comments
 Email Alert *
 Add to My List *
 * Requires registration (Free)

 Article Access Statistics
    PDF Downloaded901    
    Comments [Add]    
    Cited by others 44    

Recommend this journal