| 1. |
|
|
| 2. |
- Dierens, M., et al.
(författare)
-
Cost estimation of single-implant treatment in the periodontally healthy patient after 16-22 years of follow-up
- 2015
-
Ingår i: Clinical Oral Implants Research. - : John Wiley & Sons. - 0905-7161 .- 1600-0501. ; 26:11, s. 1288-1296
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Background: Costs for single-implant treatment are mostly described for the initial treatment. Information on the additional cost related to aftercare is scarce. Objective: To make an estimation of complication costs of single implants in periodontally healthy patients after 16-22years and to compare costs for various prosthetic designs. Materials and methods: Patients with a single implant were recalled for a clinical examination and file investigation. Prosthetic designs included single-tooth (ST) and CeraOne (CO) abutments supporting a porcelain-fused-to-metal (PFM), all-ceramic (CER), or gold-acrylic (ACR) crown. Costs related to failures or technical, biologic, and aesthetic complications were retrieved from patient's records. Total and yearly additional complication costs were calculated as a percentage relative to the initial cost. Chair time needed to solve the complication was recorded and prosthetic designs were compared by Kruskal-Wallis tests. Results: Fifty patients with 59 surviving implants were clinically investigated. Additional complication costs after a mean follow-up of 18.5years amounted to 23% (range 0-110%) of the initial treatment cost. In total, 39% of implants presented with no costs, whereas 22% and 8% encountered additional costs over 50% and 75%, respectively. In 2%, the complication costs exceeded the initial cost. The mean yearly additional cost was 1.2% (range 0-6%) and mean complication time per implant was 67min (range 0-345min). Differences between prosthetic designs (CO, ST-PFM, ST-ACR) were statistically significant for total cost (P=0.011), yearly cost (P=0.023), and time (P=0.023). Pairwise comparison revealed significant lower costs for CO compared with ST-ACR reconstructions. Conclusion: Patients should be informed about additional costs related to complications with single implants. The mean additional cost spent on complications was almost one-quarter of the initial treatment price. A majority of implants presented with lower additional costs, whereas the highest complication costs were related to a smaller group with 22% of the implants needing more than half of the initial cost for complication management. Expenses were significantly different for various prosthetic designs.
|
|
| 3. |
- Dierens, M., et al.
(författare)
-
Long-term follow-up of turned single implants placed in periodontally healthy patients after 16–22 years : radiographic and peri-implant outcome
- 2012
-
Ingår i: Clinical Oral Implants Research. - : John Wiley & Sons. - 0905-7161 .- 1600-0501. ; 23:2, s. 197-204
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Objectives: Retrospectively evaluate the survival, radiographic and peri-implant outcome of single turned Brånemark™ implants after at least 16 years. Materials and methods: From 134 patients (C-group), 101 could be contacted concerning implant survival and 50 (59 remaining implants) were clinically examined (I-group). Marginal bone level was radiographically measured from the implant–abutment junction at baseline (=within 6 months after abutment connection) and 1–4, 5–8 and 16–22 years post-operatively. Probing depth, gingival and plaque index were measured. Marginal bone-level changes were analyzed using Friedman's and Wilcoxon's signed ranks tests. Spearman's correlations between radiographic and clinical parameters were calculated. Results: In the C-group, 13 out of 166 implants in 11 out of 134 patients failed (CSR=91.5%). In the I-group (28 males–22 females; mean age 23.9 years at baseline; range 14–57), the mean follow-up was 18.4 years (range 16–22). The mean bone level was 1.7±0.88 mm (range −0.8 to 5) after 16–22 years. Changes in the mean marginal bone level were statistically significant between baseline and the second measuring interval (1–4 years). Thereafter, no significant differences could be demonstrated. The mean interproximal probing depth, gingival and plaque indices were 3.9±1.27 mm, 1.2±0.81 and 0.2±0.48, respectively. Probing depth was moderately correlated with gingival inflammation (r=0.6; P<0.001) but not with bone level (P>0.05). 81.4% of the implants had a bone level ≤2nd thread and 91.5% had a probing depth ≤5 mm. 76.3% had both bone level ≤2nd thread and probing depth ≤5 mm. Conclusions and clinical implications: The single turned Brånemark™ implant is a predictable solution with high clinical survival and success rates. In general, a steady-state bone level can be expected over decades, with minimal signs of peri-implant disease. A minority (5%), however, presents with progressive bone loss.
|
|
| 4. |
|
|
