Publication:
Group 1 ITI Consensus Report: The influence of implant length and design and medications on clinical and patient-reported outcomes.

cris.virtualsource.author-orcidf907b5fd-8946-4cff-b57c-001944477e2f
cris.virtualsource.author-orcid2fa31c93-a031-4985-ae61-fc25f1b615dd
datacite.rightsopen.access
dc.contributor.authorJung, Ronald E
dc.contributor.authorAl-Nawas, Bilal
dc.contributor.authorAraujo, Mauricio
dc.contributor.authorAvila-Ortiz, Gustavo
dc.contributor.authorBarter, Stephen
dc.contributor.authorBrodala, Nadine
dc.contributor.authorChappuis, Vivianne
dc.contributor.authorChen, Bo
dc.contributor.authorDe Souza, Andre
dc.contributor.authorAlmeida, Ricardo Faria
dc.contributor.authorFickl, Stefan
dc.contributor.authorFinelle, Gary
dc.contributor.authorGaneles, Jeffrey
dc.contributor.authorGholami, Hadi
dc.contributor.authorHammerle, Christoph
dc.contributor.authorJensen, Simon
dc.contributor.authorJokstad, Asbjørn
dc.contributor.authorKatsuyama, Hideaki
dc.contributor.authorKleinheinz, Johannes
dc.contributor.authorKunavisarut, Chatchai
dc.contributor.authorMardas, Nikos
dc.contributor.authorMonje, Alberto
dc.contributor.authorPapaspyridakos, Panos
dc.contributor.authorPayer, Michael
dc.contributor.authorSchiegnitz, Eik
dc.contributor.authorSmeets, Ralf
dc.contributor.authorStefanini, Martina
dc.contributor.authorTen Bruggenkate, Christiaan
dc.contributor.authorVazouras, Konstantinos
dc.contributor.authorWeber, Hans-Peter
dc.contributor.authorWeingart, Dieter
dc.contributor.authorWindisch, Péter
dc.date.accessioned2024-10-08T15:20:11Z
dc.date.available2024-10-08T15:20:11Z
dc.date.issued2018-10
dc.description.abstractOBJECTIVES The aim of Working Group 1 was to address the influence of different local (implant length, diameter, and design) and systemic (medications) factors on clinical, radiographic, and patient-reported outcomes in implant dentistry. Focused questions on (a) short posterior dental implants (≤6 mm), (b) narrow diameter implants, (c) implant design (tapered compared to a non-tapered implant design), and (d) medication-related dental implant failures were addressed. MATERIALS AND METHODS Four systematic reviews were prepared in advance of the Consensus Conference and were discussed among the participants of Group 1. Consensus statements, clinical recommendations, and recommendations for future research were based on structured group discussions until consensus was reached among the entire expert Group 1. The statements were then presented and accepted following further discussion and modifications as required by the plenary. RESULTS Short implants (≤6 mm) revealed a survival rate ranging from 86.7% to 100%, whereas standard implant survival rate ranged from 95% to 100% with a follow-up from 1 to 5 years. Short implants demonstrated a higher variability and a higher Risk Ratio [RR: 1.24 (95% CI: 0.63, 2.44, p = 0.54)] for failure compared to standard implants. Narrow diameter implants (NDI) have been classified into three categories: Category 1: Implants with a diameter of <2.5 mm ("Mini-implants"); Category 2: Implants with a diameter of 2.5 mm to <3.3 mm; Category 3: Implants with a diameter of 3.3 mm to 3.5 mm. Mean survival rates were 94.7 ± 5%, 97.3 ± 5% and 97.7 ± 2.3% for category 1, 2 and 3. Tapered versus non-tapered implants demonstrated only insignificant differences regarding clinical, radiographic, and patient-reported outcomes. The intake of certain selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors and proton pump inhibitors is associated with a statistically significant increased implant failure rate. The intake of bisphosphonates related to the treatment of osteoporosis was not associated with an increased implant failure rate. CONCLUSIONS It is concluded that short implants (≤6 mm) are a valid option in situations of reduced bone height to avoid possible morbidity associated with augmentation procedures; however, they reveal a higher variability and lower predictability in survival rates. Narrow diameter implants with diameters of 2.5 mm and more demonstrated no difference in implant survival rates compared to standard diameter implants. In contrast, it is concluded that narrow diameter implants with diameters of less than 2.5 mm exhibited lower survival rates compared to standard diameter implants. It is further concluded that there are no differences between tapered versus non-tapered dental implants. Certain medications such as selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors and proton pump inhibitors showed an association with a higher implant failure rate.
dc.description.numberOfPages9
dc.description.sponsorshipZahnmedizinische Kliniken, Klinik für Oralchirurgie und Stomatologie
dc.description.sponsorshipZahnmedizinische Kliniken, Forschung
dc.identifier.doi10.7892/boris.126154
dc.identifier.pmid30328189
dc.identifier.publisherDOI10.1111/clr.13342
dc.identifier.urihttps://boris-portal.unibe.ch/handle/20.500.12422/63994
dc.language.isoen
dc.publisherWiley-Blackwell
dc.relation.ispartofClinical oral implants research
dc.relation.issn0905-7161
dc.relation.organizationDCD5A442BC06E17DE0405C82790C4DE2
dc.relation.organizationDCD5A442B9C0E17DE0405C82790C4DE2
dc.subjectbiological complications clinical decision-making dental implants drug endosseous implant epidemiology failure humans medication meta-analysis narrow diameter osteotomy randomized controlled trials review short dental implants small dental implants survival
dc.subject.ddc600 - Technology::610 - Medicine & health
dc.titleGroup 1 ITI Consensus Report: The influence of implant length and design and medications on clinical and patient-reported outcomes.
dc.typearticle
dspace.entity.typePublication
dspace.file.typetext
oaire.citation.endPage77
oaire.citation.issueS16
oaire.citation.startPage69
oaire.citation.volume29
oairecerif.author.affiliationZahnmedizinische Kliniken, Klinik für Oralchirurgie und Stomatologie
oairecerif.author.affiliationZahnmedizinische Kliniken, Forschung
unibe.contributor.rolecreator
unibe.contributor.rolecreator
unibe.contributor.rolecreator
unibe.contributor.rolecreator
unibe.contributor.rolecreator
unibe.contributor.rolecreator
unibe.contributor.rolecreator
unibe.contributor.rolecreator
unibe.contributor.rolecreator
unibe.contributor.rolecreator
unibe.contributor.rolecreator
unibe.contributor.rolecreator
unibe.contributor.rolecreator
unibe.contributor.rolecreator
unibe.contributor.rolecreator
unibe.contributor.rolecreator
unibe.contributor.rolecreator
unibe.contributor.rolecreator
unibe.contributor.rolecreator
unibe.contributor.rolecreator
unibe.contributor.rolecreator
unibe.contributor.rolecreator
unibe.contributor.rolecreator
unibe.contributor.rolecreator
unibe.contributor.rolecreator
unibe.contributor.rolecreator
unibe.contributor.rolecreator
unibe.contributor.rolecreator
unibe.contributor.rolecreator
unibe.contributor.rolecreator
unibe.contributor.rolecreator
unibe.contributor.rolecreator
unibe.date.licenseChanged2019-10-22 15:52:12
unibe.description.ispublishedpub
unibe.eprints.legacyId126154
unibe.journal.abbrevTitleCLIN ORAL IMPLAN RES
unibe.refereedtrue
unibe.subtype.articlereview

Files

Original bundle
Now showing 1 - 1 of 1
Name:
Jung_et_al-2018-Clinical_Oral_Implants_Research.pdf
Size:
703.58 KB
Format:
Adobe Portable Document Format
File Type:
text
License:
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0
Content:
published

Collections