28 Clinical evidence and Science Healing time depends – among other factors – on the surgical interventions performed during implant placement, on bone quality as well as the implant surface. In a retrospective study, Nelson and co-workers investigated the long-term efficacy of two different sand-blasted and acid-etched implant systems (CAMLOG® and Straumann implants) loaded with the same reduced healing time. The results were published in three articles (Nelson et al. 2008 (11) and Semper et al. 2007 (12) and 2008 (13)). Nelson reported the results of the entire study cohort including 532 implants placed in the maxilla (448) and in the mandible (84) following the standardized healing time of the department, i.e. six weeks post implant placement for mandible and 12 weeks for maxilla. The evaluation of the implant success was based on criteria defined by Buser et al. (2002) (1): absence of mobility, no apical translucency, no pain or other signs of persistent or irreversibly symptoms, no periimplant inflammation. Overall success was 99.4% at five years and did not show any statistical difference between the two implant systems. Semper using the same approach, reported the results of the implants inserted in the maxilla. No statistical difference between the two systems was noticed, either. This ‘time saving’ offers psychological, functional, and aesthetic benefits for the patients without compromise. Success based on time of implant placement and time of loading De Lange et al. (2010) (14) studied the treatment success of 774 implants in fresh or healed extraction sites in anterior positions, with immediate or delayed loading. A mean cumulative survival rate of 96.7% resulted over 5-years with no differences regarding time of implant placement and time of loading. The authors concluded that individual risk factors such as smoking, inflammation or endodontic treatments were much more critical to success than the time points of implant placement and loading. Treatment success with reduced healing time: 6 weeks in mandible, 12 weeks in maxilla In the posterior maxilla, placement of implants has often been combined with sinus floor augmentations. Five-year clinical outcomes were gathered by Krennmair et al. (2018) (15) for 81 patients with 119 staged sinus floor elevations and 284 dental implants. Three patient groups with sinus grafts with three different ratios of bovine bone mineral and autogenous bone mixture were evaluated. With only two implant losses over 5-year (survival 99.3%, success 96.7%) the implants provided predictable clinical outcome irrespective of the mixture of bovine sinus grafts with autogenous bone used. In another clinical study with CAMLOG® implants placed in staged maxillary sinus augmentations the survival and success rates were similarly high (99.3%, 96.5% respectively) and confirmed the safe use of these implants within this indication (Krennmair et al. 2019) (16). Success depending on implant diameter and length Strietzel & Reichart (2007) (17) compared the treatment success of short (9, 11mm) and long (13, 16mm) CAMLOG® implants. The authors did not observe any significant differences between lengths. The average survival rate of all 325 implants was 98.5% over an observation period of up to four and a half years. In Austria a big data analysis (retrospective study) was performed with 70 000 sold implants over seven years (Seemann et al. 2017 (18)). With the support of the implant company the return rate of lost CAMLOG® implants as part of an osseointegration guarantee program was analyzed by implant diameter, length, and type. The overall return rate due to implant loss was 2.78%. Compared to the smaller diameters the implant diameter 6.0mm showed significantly higher return rates. Same was observed with short implants (9 mm) compared to implant length 13mm. Most of the implant losses were early failures occurring within 157 days after implant placement (80%). The authors highlighted the importance of selecting the implant dimensions according to the specific indications. Success of implants combined with augmentations and sinus lifts CLINICAL EVIDENCE FOR CAMLOG® AND CONELOG® IMPLANTS
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MTE0MzMw