Powered by OpenAIRE graph
Found an issue? Give us feedback
addClaim

[Criteria of success in implantology].

Authors: R S R, Buch; G, Weibrich; W, Wagner;

[Criteria of success in implantology].

Abstract

So far there is no generally accepted definition of success in the case of dental implants, although criteria differing from country to country have been proposed, which evaluate the success of implants with reference to clinical and X-ray control parameters. The aim of the study was to examine the five most frequently used sets of criteria suggested for determination of the success or otherwise of implants ( Albrektsson, Jahn, Buser, NIH conference, Naert) and ascertain their relative values.In a clinical review, 508 implants (Astra, Frialit-2, IMZ TwinPlus and ITI) were examined and a subjective evaluation of them was made by the patients. Subsequently a statistical analysis was executed (in situ rate, Kaplan-Meier, success criteria).The average observation time of all implants included in the study was 3.5 years, and the in situ survival rate was 95%; Kaplan-Meier survival analysis revealed that the probability of survival after 6 years was 93%. Application of different criteria for success gave very different results (Albrektsson 88%, Naert 89%, NIH 85%, Buser 88%, Jahn and dacute;Hoedt 75%).The increasing importance of quality assurance in medicine makes it necessary to establish standards that will permit reliable comparative analysis of how successful implants are in the future.

Keywords

Quality Assurance, Health Care, Dental Implantation, Endosseous, Survival Analysis, Outcome and Process Assessment, Health Care, Postoperative Complications, Dental Prosthesis Design, Patient Satisfaction, Germany, Humans, Dental Restoration Failure, Follow-Up Studies, Probability

  • BIP!
    Impact byBIP!
    selected citations
    These citations are derived from selected sources.
    This is an alternative to the "Influence" indicator, which also reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically).
    9
    popularity
    This indicator reflects the "current" impact/attention (the "hype") of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network.
    Average
    influence
    This indicator reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically).
    Average
    impulse
    This indicator reflects the initial momentum of an article directly after its publication, based on the underlying citation network.
    Average
Powered by OpenAIRE graph
Found an issue? Give us feedback
selected citations
These citations are derived from selected sources.
This is an alternative to the "Influence" indicator, which also reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically).
BIP!Citations provided by BIP!
popularity
This indicator reflects the "current" impact/attention (the "hype") of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network.
BIP!Popularity provided by BIP!
influence
This indicator reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically).
BIP!Influence provided by BIP!
impulse
This indicator reflects the initial momentum of an article directly after its publication, based on the underlying citation network.
BIP!Impulse provided by BIP!
9
Average
Average
Average
Upload OA version
Are you the author of this publication? Upload your Open Access version to Zenodo!
It’s fast and easy, just two clicks!