LOGIN
 
Share Page:
Back

Volume 25 , Issue 2
March/April 2010

Pages 367373


Evaluation of the Effectiveness of Dental Implant Therapy in a Practice-Based Network (FOCUS)

Clark M. Stanford, DDS, PhD/Wilfried Wagner, MD, DDS/Ruggero Rodriguez y Baena, MD, DDS, PhD/ Michael Norton, BDS, FDS, FCS (ED)/Edwin McGlumphy, DDS, MS/Joseph Schmidt, DDS


PMID: 20369097

Purpose: Evaluations of multicenter clinical trials are needed to determine the effectiveness of care in routine implant therapy in clinical practice. Materials and Methods: Ninety-two clinicians in 75 clinics in 13 countries recruited five subjects per clinic who were in need of a minimum of two dental implants to restore a partially edentulous quadrant and were followed for a minimum of 1 year after loading. A centralized Internet-based case report form was developed to coordinate data recording. Data entry was done by each clinic, with follow-up source verification. Results: The study recruited 549 subjects in 101 clinics with 1,893 implants placed. Three hundred forty subjects completed the 1-year recall (gender distribution of 56% female, 44% male; mean age of 57 years with a range of 18 to 84 years). In all, 1,246 dental implants were followed; a majority of subjects had two to four implants. Twenty-eight percent of subjects received osseous grafting prior to or coincident with implant placement. In the maxilla, 779 (63%) implants were placed, 256 in the anterior and 523 in the posterior; in the mandible, 467 implants were placed, 85 in the anterior and 382 in the posterior arch. The median edentulous period prior to implant placement was 24 months (range, 0 to 480 months); 46% of all patients received implants within 12 months of tooth loss. At 1 year after prosthesis insertion, 15 subjects had lost a total of 17 implants, for a cumulative implant survival rate of 98.6%. Chi-square and Fisher exact tests indicated a higher risk of implant loss at sites with advanced resorption and for wider-diameter implants (5-mm tapered body). There was no statistical relationship with implant loss relative to implant length or anatomic location within the oral cavity. Conclusions: The outcomes support the need for ongoing involvement of clinicians in routine practice assessments of patient-based outcomes of implant therapy. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2010;25:367373


Full Text PDF File | Order Article

 

 
Get Adobe Reader
Adobe Acrobat Reader is required to view PDF files. This is a free program available from the Adobe web site.
Follow the download directions on the Adobe web site to get your copy of Adobe Acrobat Reader.

 

© 2014 Quintessence Publishing Co, Inc JOMI Home
Current Issue
Ahead of Print
Archive
Author Guidelines
About
Accepted Manuscripts
Submission Form
Submit
Reprints
Permission
Advertising
Quintessence Home
Terms of Use
Privacy Policy
About Us
Contact Us
Help