Dataset Information

Effectiveness of implant therapy analyzed in a Swedish population: early and late implant loss.

ABSTRACT: Treatment outcomes in implant dentistry have been mainly assessed as implant survival rates in small, selected patient groups of specialist or university clinical settings. This study reports on loss of dental implants assessed in a large and randomly selected patient sample. The results were aimed at representing evaluation of effectiveness of implant dentistry. Using the national data register of the Swedish Social Insurance Agency, 4,716 patients were randomly selected. All had been provided with implant-supported restorative therapy in 2003. Patient files of 2,765 patients (11,311 implants) were collected from more than 800 clinicians. Information on patients, treatment procedures, and outcomes related to the implant-supported restorative therapy was extracted from the files. In total, 596 of the 2,765 subjects, provided with 2,367 implants, attended a clinical examination 9 y after therapy. Implant loss that occurred prior to connection of the supraconstruction was scored as an early implant loss, while later occurring loss was considered late implant loss. Early implant loss occurred in 4.4% of patients (1.4% of implants), while 4.2% of the patients who were examined 9 y after therapy presented with late implant loss (2.0% of implants). Overall, 7.6% of the patients had lost at least 1 implant. Multilevel analysis revealed higher odds ratios for early implant loss among smokers and patients with an initial diagnosis of periodontitis. Implants shorter than 10 mm and representing certain brands also showed higher odds ratios for early implant loss. Implant brand also influenced late implant loss. Implant loss is not an uncommon event, and patient and implant characteristics influence outcomes (ClinicalTrials.gov NCT01825772).

SUBMITTER: Derks J

PROVIDER: S-EPMC4541089 | biostudies-literature | 2015 Mar

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Effectiveness of implant therapy analyzed in a Swedish population: early and late implant loss.

Derks J J Håkansson J J Wennström J L JL Tomasi C C Larsson M M Berglundh T T

Journal of dental research 20141211 3 Suppl

Treatment outcomes in implant dentistry have been mainly assessed as implant survival rates in small, selected patient groups of specialist or university clinical settings. This study reports on loss of dental implants assessed in a large and randomly selected patient sample. The results were aimed at representing evaluation of effectiveness of implant dentistry. Using the national data register of the Swedish Social Insurance Agency, 4,716 patients were randomly selected. All had been provided ...[more]

PMID: 25503901

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundImplants are a predictable and well-established treatment method in dentistry. Nevertheless, looking at possible failures of dental implants, early and late loss have to be distinguished. The intent of the study was to report microbiological findings on the surface of implants with severe peri-implantitis, which had to be explanted.Methods53 specimens of implants from 48 patients without severe general illnesses have been examined. The groups investigated were implants that had to be removed in the period of osseointegration (early loss, 13 patients with 14 implants) or after the healing period (late loss, 14 patients with 17 implants). The implant losses were compared with two control groups (implants with no bone loss directly after completed osseointegration, two to four months after implant placement (17 patients with 17 implants) and implants with no bone loss and prosthetic restoration for more than three years (5 patients with 5 implants)). Data about the bacteria located in the peri-implant sulcus was collected using amplification and high throughput sequencing of the 16S rRNA gene.ResultsThe biofilm composition differed substantially between individuals. Both in early and late implant loss, Fusobacterium nucleatum and Porphyromonas gingivalis were found to be abundant. Late lost implants showed higher bacterial diversity and in addition higher abundances of Treponema, Fretibacterium, Pseudoramibacter and Desulfobulbus, while microbial communities of early loss implants were very heterogeneous and showed no significantly more abundant bacterial taxa.ConclusionsSpecific peri-implant pathogens were found around implants that were lost after a primarily uneventful osseointegration. P. gingivalis and F. nucleatum frequently colonized the implant in early and late losses and could therefore be characteristic for implant loss in general. In general, early lost implants showed also lower microbial diversity than late losses. However, the microbial results were not indicative of the causes of early and late losses.

Project description:OBJECTIVES:To assess, retrospectively, whether older age has an impact on implant osseointegration when compared with younger age. METHODS:All patients ?65 years old at implant installation, in an university setting over a time-period of 11.5 years, with complete anamnestic data and follow-up until prosthetic restoration were included, and any early implant loss (EIL; i.e. lack of osseointegration prior to or at the time-point of prosthetic restoration) was recorded. Further, one implant, from each of the elderly patients, was attempted matched to one implant in a younger patient (35 to <55 years old at implant installation) from the same clinic based on (a) gender, (b) implant region, (c) smoking status and (d) bone grafting prior to/simultaneously with implant installation. The potential impact of various local and systemic factors on EIL in the entire elderly population, and in the matched elderly and younger patient group was statistically assessed. RESULTS:Four hundred forty-four patients ?65 years old (range 65.1-91.3; 56.8% female) receiving 1,517 implants were identified; 10 patients had one EIL each (implant/patient level: 0.66/2.25%). Splitting this patient cohort additionally into four age groups [65-69.9 (n = 213), 70-74.9 (n = 111), 75-79.9 (n = 80) and ?80 (n = 40)], EIL was on the implant level 0.41, 0.83, 0.34 and 2.26%, respectively, (p = .102) and on the patient level 1.41, 2.70, 1.25 and 7.50%, respectively, (p = .104); multilevel analysis showed weak evidence of association of increasing age with higher EIL rate (p = .090). Matching was possible in 347 cases, and 5 (1.44%) and 9 (2.59%) EIL in the elderly and younger patients, respectively, were observed (p = .280). EIL could not be associated with any systemic condition or medication intake. CONCLUSIONS:Elderly patients ?65 years old presented a similarly low EIL rate as younger patients 35 to <55 years old, while patients ?80 years old may have a slight tendency for a higher EIL rate. Hence, ageing does not seem to compromise osseointegration, and if at all, then only slightly and at a later stage of life.

Project description:To evaluate the 3-year incremental cost-effectiveness of fluocinolone acetonide implant versus systemic therapy for the treatment of noninfectious intermediate, posterior, and panuveitis.Randomized, controlled, clinical trial.Patients with active or recently active intermediate, posterior, or panuveitis enrolled in the Multicenter Uveitis Steroid Treatment Trial.Data on cost and health utility during 3 years after randomization were evaluated at 6-month intervals. Analyses were stratified by disease laterality at randomization (31 unilateral vs 224 bilateral) because of the large upfront cost of the implant.The primary outcome was the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) over 3 years: the ratio of the difference in cost (in United States dollars) to the difference in quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs). Costs of medications, surgeries, hospitalizations, and regular procedures (e.g., laboratory monitoring for systemic therapy) were included. We computed QALYs as a weighted average of EQ-5D scores over 3 years of follow-up.The ICER at 3 years was $297,800/QALY for bilateral disease, driven by the high cost of implant therapy (difference implant - systemic [?]: $16,900; P < 0.001) and the modest gains in QALYs (? = 0.057; P = 0.22). The probability of the ICER being cost-effective at thresholds of $50,000/QALY and $100,000/QALY was 0.003 and 0.04, respectively. The ICER for unilateral disease was more favorable, namely, $41,200/QALY at 3 years, because of a smaller difference in cost between the 2 therapies (? = $5300; P = 0.44) and a larger benefit in QALYs with the implant (? = 0.130; P = 0.12). The probability of the ICER being cost-effective at thresholds of $50,000/QALY and $100,000/QALY was 0.53 and 0.74, respectively.Fluocinolone acetonide implant therapy was reasonably cost-effective compared with systemic therapy for individuals with unilateral intermediate, posterior, or panuveitis but not for those with bilateral disease. These results do not apply to the use of implant therapy when systemic therapy has failed or is contraindicated. Should the duration of implant effect prove to be substantially >3 years or should large changes in therapy pricing occur, the cost-effectiveness of implant versus systemic therapy would need to be reevaluated.

Project description:BackgroundTo compare the cost-effectiveness of treating early responders versus early nonresponders to an atypical antipsychotic (risperidone) and the cost-effectiveness of treating early nonresponders maintained on risperidone versus those switched to olanzapine.MethodsThis post hoc analysis used data from a randomized, double-blind, 12-week schizophrenia study (Study Code: HGMN, n = 628). Participants were initially assigned to risperidone therapy. Early response was defined as a ≥ 20% improvement on the Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale (PANSS) total score from baseline to two weeks. Early responders continued on risperidone, whereas early nonresponders were randomized in a double-blind manner to continue on risperidone or switch to olanzapine for 10 additional weeks. Early responders and early nonresponders maintained on risperidone were compared for health-state utilities (benefits) and total cost over the 12-week study; early nonresponders maintained on risperidone or switched to olanzapine were compared from randomization (10-week period). Utilities were derived from the PANSS and adverse events. Mixed models were used to assess group differences in utilities. Treatment costs were calculated based on health states. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios were then utilized to compare treatment groups.ResultsEarly responders to risperidone had significantly greater total utility and lower total treatment costs than early nonresponders to risperidone. Compared with early nonresponders who continued on risperidone, those who were switched to olanzapine had significantly higher total utility scores at endpoint and numerically lower total treatment costs, reflecting significantly lower nonmedication treatment costs, even though medication costs were significantly higher compared with generic risperidone.ConclusionTreatment of early responders was more cost-effective than treatment of early nonresponders to atypical antipsychotic therapy. Switching early nonresponders to olanzapine resulted in improved treatment effectiveness, met the criteria for some dominance, and appeared modestly more cost-effective than maintaining treatment with generic risperidone.

Dataset Information

Effectiveness of implant therapy analyzed in a Swedish population: early and late implant loss.

Publications

Effectiveness of implant therapy analyzed in a Swedish population: early and late implant loss.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets