We are using cookies to implement functions like login, shopping cart or language selection for this website. Furthermore we use Google Analytics to create anonymized statistical reports of the usage which creates Cookies too. You will find more information in our privacy policy.
OK, I agree I do not want Google Analytics-Cookies
The International Journal of Oral & Maxillofacial Implants



Forgotten password?


Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 19 (2004), No. 6     15. Nov. 2004
Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 19 (2004), No. 6  (15.11.2004)

Page 873-879

A Comparison of Characteristics of Implant Failure and Survival in Periodontally Compromised and Periodontally Healthy Patients: A Clinical Report
Rosenberg, Edwin S. / Cho, Sang-Choon / Elian, Nicolas / Jalbout, Ziad N. / Froum, Stuart J. / Evian, Cyril I.
Purpose: This study compares implant survival and patterns of implant failure in periodontally compromised and periodontally healthy patients.
Materials and Methods: In a private periodontal practice, over a 13-year period, implants were placed in both periodontally compromised and periodontally healthy patients. Implants were classified in 5 different groups according to surface texture. Survival rates in each group were compared according to implant location, diameter, length, and phase of treatment.
Results: A total of 1,511 implants were placed in 334 patients. One hundred fifty-one of these patients, classified as periodontally compromised patients (PCP), received 923 implants. The remaining 183 patients, classified as periodontally healthy patients (PHP), received 588 implants. The overall survival rate for implants placed in the PHP group was 93.7%, compared to 90.6% in the PCP group. The survival rate of hydroxyapatite-coated implants was 92.6% in the PHP group and 81% in the PCP group. The survival rate of the turned-surface implants was similar in both groups.
Discussion: Two types of implant failure were identified. The first was failure of the implant to osseointegrate. This type of failure occurred early in treatment and appeared to be related to smooth-surface implants placed in bone of low density. Failures of this type were distributed equally between the PHP and PCP groups. The second type of failure was related to peri-implantitis. It was observed most often with implants with hydroxyapatite surfaces, occurred as the result of a progressive condition, and was most prevalent in the PCP group.
Conclusion: Further long-term controlled investigations are needed to determine the influences of implant suface and host susceptibility on implant failure in both PHP and PCP.