1. Changing Preference of One- Vs. Two-Stage Implant Placement in Partially Edentulous Individuals: An 18-Year Retrospective Study
- Author
-
Helena Zelikman, Ari Glikman, Sarit Naishlos, Gavriel Chaushu, Ofir Rosner, Irit Kupershmidt, Joseph Nissan, Eran Zenziper, Liat Chaushu, and David Lavi
- Subjects
Dentistry ,010501 environmental sciences ,lcsh:Technology ,01 natural sciences ,lcsh:Chemistry ,03 medical and health sciences ,0302 clinical medicine ,one-stage surgery ,dental implants ,Medicine ,General Materials Science ,Stage (cooking) ,lcsh:QH301-705.5 ,Instrumentation ,0105 earth and related environmental sciences ,Fluid Flow and Transfer Processes ,Crestal bone ,lcsh:T ,business.industry ,Process Chemistry and Technology ,General Engineering ,Mandible ,implant survival ,Retrospective cohort study ,030206 dentistry ,lcsh:QC1-999 ,surgical preference ,Computer Science Applications ,Implant placement ,lcsh:Biology (General) ,lcsh:QD1-999 ,lcsh:TA1-2040 ,Wide diameter ,Maxilla ,Implant ,lcsh:Engineering (General). Civil engineering (General) ,business ,two-stage surgery ,lcsh:Physics - Abstract
The purpose of the present long-term retrospective study was to assess the changing preference of one- vs. two-stage implant placement in partially edentulous individuals. The clinical outcome measures were one- vs. two-stage implant placement, implant survival, and gingival index. The radiological outcome measure was crestal bone loss. Other recorded information included gender, age, implant characteristics (brand, type, length, diameter) and implant location (maxilla/mandible). A total of 393 implants in 111 patients were included. The results revealed that there were no significant demographic differences between the one- and two-stage implant placement groups. There was a preference for one-stage surgery when wide diameter implants were used and when the number of implants per patient was &le, 3. The mandible was the major implant site in the one-stage surgery group. Crestal bone loss and gingival index were similar for the two groups in both the short and long term. It can be concluded that lack of any long-term differences in implant survival, crestal bone loss and gingival health around implants after one- or two-stage implant placement promoted a significant change over 18 years, increasing to 50% the prevalence of one-stage surgery.
- Published
- 2020
- Full Text
- View/download PDF