Retrospective success and survival rates of dental implants placed with simultaneous bone augmentation in partially edentulous patients

Authors

  • Nima Bazrafshan,

    1. Periodontics, Melbourne Dental School, University of Melbourne, Parkville, Vic., Australia
    Search for more papers by this author
  • Ivan Darby

    Corresponding author
    1. Periodontics, Melbourne Dental School, University of Melbourne, Parkville, Vic., Australia
    • Corresponding author:

      Ivan Darby

      Periodontics

      Melbourne Dental School, The University of Melbourne

      720 Swanston St

      Parkville

      Victoria, 3010, Australia

      Tel.: +61 39 341 1471

      Fax: +61 39 341 1595

      e-mail: idarby@unimelb.edu.au

    Search for more papers by this author

Abstract

Aim

The aim of this study was to assess the success and survival rate of dental implants placed with simultaneous hard tissue grafting.

Material and methods

All patients treated in Royal Dental Hospital of Melbourne who had implant placement with and without guided bone regeneration (GBR) procedures were identified. Seventy-three attended a follow-up appointment. These patients were examined recording probing depth, bleeding on probing, plaque accumulation and radiographic bone loss by one examiner. Clinical and radiographic findings were compared in grafted and non-grafted groups and also analysed for years in function.

Results

Approximately 50% of implants were placed simultaneous guided bone regeneration technique. In the majority of cases, defects were filled by deproteinized bovine bone mineral and covered with collagen membrane. The range of time in function was 20–88 months with a mean 34.8 (±1.7). Seventy-nine per cent of the implants placed in anterior maxilla were placed with GBR, while only 18% in posterior mandible needed grafting procedure. The cumulative implant survival rates at the time of examination was 97.95% for both GBR and non-GBR group. The mean PPD, BOP, and Plaque index were not statistically significantly different in GBR vs. non-GBR groups two to seven years in function. However, bone loss is significantly less in GBR group 2–7 years after function. The overall success rate was around 90% after 2–7 years in function with the GBR group slightly less than the non-GBR group, but not statistically significant.

Conclusions

For the subjects included in this retrospective study, the data demonstrate that GBR is a predictable procedure. The survival and success rates of the implants inserted with simultaneous GBR were similar, if slightly lower, to the non-grafted implants.

Ancillary