Get access

Fixed Implant-Supported Prostheses in Elderly Patients: A 5-Year Retrospective Comparison between Partially and Completely Edentulous Patients Aged 80 Years or Older at Implant Surgery

Authors

  • Jan Kowar DDS,

    1. Faculty dentist, Brånemark Clinic, Public Dental Health Care Service, Gothenburg, Region of Västra Götaland, Sweden;
    Search for more papers by this author
  • Annelie Eriksson DDS,

    1. Faculty dentist, Brånemark Clinic, Public Dental Health Care Service, Gothenburg, Region of Västra Götaland, Sweden;
    2. faculty dentist, prosthetic specialist clinic, Public Dental Health Care Service, Borås, Region of Västra Götaland, Sweden;
    Search for more papers by this author
  • Torsten Jemt DDS, Odont Dr/PhD

    Corresponding author
    1. prosthodontist, Brånemark Clinic, Public Dental Health Care Service, Gothenburg, Region of Västra Götaland, Sweden;
    2. professor, Department of Prosthetic Dentistry/Dental Material Science, The Sahlgrenska Academy at Göteborg University, Gothenburg, Sweden
    Search for more papers by this author

Dr. Torsten Jemt, Brånemark Clinic, Public Dental Health Care Service, Medicinaregatan 12 C, S – 413 90 Göteborg, Sweden; e-mail: torsten.jemt@vgregion.se

ABSTRACT

Background: Knowledge on implant treatment in the partially edentulous patient is low for elderly patients aged 80 years or older at inclusion.

Purpose: The objective of this study was to report and compare the clinical and radiological performance of implant treatment in edentulous and partially edentulous elderly patients during 5 years in function.

Material and Methods: Altogether, 192 edentulous (control) and 72 partially edentulous (study) patients, consecutively treated and provided with 1,091 and 265 Brånemark implants, respectively, were included during a period between January 1986 and December 2003, and followed-up for 5 years. Clinical information was retrospectively retrieved from patient files and intraoral radiographs were analyzed for examinations at prosthesis placement and after 1 and 5 years in function.

Results: Altogether, 92 (48%) control and 24 (33%) study patients were lost to follow-up during the 5-year period. In total, 13 (4.9%) and 26 (2.4%) implants were in the study and control groups, respectively, were lost during follow-up, resulting in a comparable 5-year implant cumulative survival rate ranging from 93.9% to 99.3% for upper and lower jaws for study and control groups, respectively. Comparable mean marginal bone loss during 5 years, ranging from 0.4 mm to 0.6 mm, was also observed in the groups. The most common complications for patients in both study and control group were soft tissue inflammation (mucositis). Patients included in the first years of the inclusion (1986–1991) period showed comparable results as patient included at the last part of the inclusion period (1998–2003).

Conclusions: Implant treatment in the partially edentulous elderly patients showed comparable clinical and radiographic results as elderly patients treated in the edentulous jaw.

Ancillary