The Journal of Contemporary Dental Practice

Register      Login

SEARCH WITHIN CONTENT

FIND ARTICLE

Volume / Issue

Online First

Archive
Related articles

VOLUME 17 , ISSUE 6 ( June, 2016 ) > List of Articles

RESEARCH ARTICLE

Assessment of Patients Referred to Specialty Dental Hospitals for Dental Implant Procedure: A Retrospective Cohort Analysis

Rishi Thukral, MC Prasant, Krunal M Punjabi, Aparna Paliwal, Kunal Patel

Citation Information : Thukral R, Prasant M, Punjabi KM, Paliwal A, Patel K. Assessment of Patients Referred to Specialty Dental Hospitals for Dental Implant Procedure: A Retrospective Cohort Analysis. J Contemp Dent Pract 2016; 17 (6):470-475.

DOI: 10.5005/jp-journals-10024-1874

Published Online: 01-06-2016

Copyright Statement:  Copyright © 2016; Jaypee Brothers Medical Publishers (P) Ltd.


Abstract

Introduction

One of the most common and effective ways of replacing missing teeth is by dental implants. Both quality and quantity of bone along with the area of implant placement govern the prognosis of the implant procedure. Certain risk factors predispose the implant treatment to high failure rate. Hence, we assessed the implant patients who were referred from private practitioners to the specialty hospitals from 2010 to 2014.

Materials and methods

All the patients being referred from private clinics to the specialty dental hospital for the purpose of prosthetic rehabilitation by dental implants from June 2010 to July 2014 were included in the present study. Skilled oral and maxillofacial surgeons were appointed for performing the implant surgical procedures. Prosthetic rehabilitation was done after 6 to 8 weeks and after 10 to 14 weeks in implant cases without and with bone augmentation procedures respectively. Distribution of dental implants based on the indications, location, dimension of augmentation procedure, and complication of implants was analyzed and assessed for the level of significance.

Results

Of the patients, 712 were females, while the remaining were males. Most of the patients were in the age group of 50 to 59 years. As compared with completely edentulous patients, most of the patients required rehabilitation by a single implant. Maximum dental implants were placed in maxillary premolar region and mandibular first molar region. Over 1,000 cases in this study required rehabilitation by augmentation procedure.

Conclusion

Partially edentulous patients are most commonly referred to specialized dental hospitals for prosthetic rehabilitation by dental implants, mostly with the purpose of implant placement. Failure rate can be minimized by following strict patient selection protocols along with following a standard surgical criterion.

Clinical significance

Following standard surgical protocols and strict treatment planning, prognosis of the dental implant procedures can be improved to a greater extent, thereby increasing its clinical success rate.

How to cite this article

Thukral R, Kumar A, Prasant MC, Punjabi KM, Paliwal A, Patel K. Assessment of Patients Referred to Specialty Dental Hospitals for Dental Implant Procedure: A Retrospective Cohort Analysis. J Contemp Dent Pract 2016;17(6):470-475.


PDF Share
  1. The applicability of osseointegrated oral implants in the rehabilitation of partial edentulism: a prospective multicenter study on 558 fixtures. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 1990 Fall;5(3):272-281.
  2. The original one-stage dental implant system and its clinical application. Periodontol 2000 1998 Jun;17(1):106-118.
  3. Osseointegration: current state of the art. Dent Clin North Am 1989 Oct;33(4):537-554.
  4. A multicenter report on osseointegrated oral implants. J Prosthet Dent 1988 Jul;60(1):75-84.
  5. A 15-year study of osseointegration in the treatment of the edentulous jaw. J Oral Surg 1981 Dec;10(6):387-416.
  6. Osseointegrated implants in edentulous jaws: a 2-year longitudinal study. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 1990 Summer;5(2):155-163.
  7. Patient selection and preparation. In: Brånemark P-I, Zarb GA, Albrektsson TA, editors. Tissueintegrated prostheses: osseointegration in clinical dentistry. Chicago (IL): Quintessence; 1985. p. 199-210.
  8. Dentistry of bone: effect on treatment plans, surgical approach, healing, and progressive bone loading. Int J Oral Implantol 1990;6(2):23-31.
  9. Implantology. New York (NY): Thieme; 1995. p. 91-124.
  10. Failure of oral implants: aetiology, symptoms and influencing factors. Clin Oral Investig 1998 Sep;2(3):102-114.
  11. 10-year survival and success rates of 511 titanium implants with a sandblasted and acid-etched surface: a retrospective study in 303 partially edentulous patients. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res 2012 Dec;14(6):839-851.
  12. Ten years later. Results from a prospective single-centre clinical study on 121 oxidized (TiUnite™) Brånemark implants in 46 patients. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res 2012 Dec;14(6):852-860.
  13. Surface-conditioned dental implants: an animal study on bone formation. J Clin Periodontol 2009 Oct;36(10):882-891.
  14. Implants et edentments partiels: aspects chirurgicaux et prothetiques. Cahiers Proth 1996;96:85-95.
  15. Aktuelles Indikationsspektrum in der oralen Implantologie an einer Überweisungsklinik. Eine retrospektive 3-Jahres-Analyse bei 737 Patienten mit 1176 Implantaten. Schweiz Monatsschr Zahnmed 2004;114:444-450.
  16. Marginal tissue reactions at osseointegrated titanium fixtures. (II) A crosssectional retrospective study. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg 1986 Feb;15(1):53-61.
  17. Healing of bone defects by guided tissue regeneration. Plastic Reconstr Surg 1988 May;81(5):672-676.
  18. Generation of new bone around titanium implants using a membrane technique: an experimental study in rabbits. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 1989 Spring;4(1):19-25.
  19. Guided tissue regeneration for implants placed into extraction sockets and for implant dehiscences: surgical techniques and case report. Int J Periodontics Restorative Dent 1990;10(5):376-391.
  20. Bone formation at dehisced dental implant sites treated with implant augmentation material: a pilot study in dogs. Int J Periodontics Restorative Dent 1990;10(2):92-101.
  21. Management of the posterior maxilla with sinus lift: review of techniques. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2009 Aug;67(8):1730-1734.
  22. Evaluation of increase in bone height following maxillary sinus augmentation using direct and indirect technique. J Dent Implant 2012 Jan;2(1):26-31.
  23. Direct vs indirect sinus lift procedure: a comparison. Natl J Maxillofac Surg 2012 Jan-Jun;3(1):31-37.
  24. A retrospective analysis of patients referred for implant placement to a specialty clinic: indications, surgical procedures, and early failures. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2008 Nov-Dec;23(6):1109-1116.
  25. Protocol for bone augmentation with simultaneous early implant placement: a retrospective multicenter clinical study. Int J Dent 2015;2015:589135.
  26. Six-year survival and early failure rate of 2918 implants with hydrophobic and hydrophilic enossal surfaces. Dent J 2015;3(1):15-23.
  27. Effectiveness of implant therapy analyzed in a Swedish population: early and late implant loss. J Dent Res 2015 Mar;94(Suppl 3):44S-51S.
  28. Co-relation between smoking and bone healing around dental implants: a clinical study. J Int Oral Health 2016;8(2):1-3.
  29. Retrospective review of grafting techniques utilized in conjunction with endosseous implant placement. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 1999 Sep-Oct;14(5):744-747.
PDF Share

© Jaypee Brothers Medical Publishers (P) LTD.