Research
Print page Print page
Switch language
The Capital Region of Denmark - a part of Copenhagen University Hospital
Published

Group 1 ITI Consensus Report: The influence of implant length and design and medications on clinical and patient-reported outcomes

Research output: Contribution to journalJournal articleResearchpeer-review

Harvard

Jung, RE, Al-Nawas, B, Araujo, M, Avila-Ortiz, G, Barter, S, Brodala, N, Chappuis, V, Chen, B, De Souza, A, Almeida, RF, Fickl, S, Finelle, G, Ganeles, J, Gholami, H, Hammerle, C, Jensen, S, Jokstad, A, Katsuyama, H, Kleinheinz, J, Kunavisarut, C, Mardas, N, Monje, A, Papaspyridakos, P, Payer, M, Schiegnitz, E, Smeets, R, Stefanini, M, Ten Bruggenkate, C, Vazouras, K, Weber, H-P, Weingart, D & Windisch, P 2018, 'Group 1 ITI Consensus Report: The influence of implant length and design and medications on clinical and patient-reported outcomes' Clinical Oral Implants Research, vol. 29 Suppl 16, pp. 69-77. https://doi.org/10.1111/clr.13342

APA

Jung, R. E., Al-Nawas, B., Araujo, M., Avila-Ortiz, G., Barter, S., Brodala, N., ... Windisch, P. (2018). Group 1 ITI Consensus Report: The influence of implant length and design and medications on clinical and patient-reported outcomes. Clinical Oral Implants Research, 29 Suppl 16, 69-77. https://doi.org/10.1111/clr.13342

CBE

Jung RE, Al-Nawas B, Araujo M, Avila-Ortiz G, Barter S, Brodala N, Chappuis V, Chen B, De Souza A, Almeida RF, Fickl S, Finelle G, Ganeles J, Gholami H, Hammerle C, Jensen S, Jokstad A, Katsuyama H, Kleinheinz J, Kunavisarut C, Mardas N, Monje A, Papaspyridakos P, Payer M, Schiegnitz E, Smeets R, Stefanini M, Ten Bruggenkate C, Vazouras K, Weber H-P, Weingart D, Windisch P. 2018. Group 1 ITI Consensus Report: The influence of implant length and design and medications on clinical and patient-reported outcomes. Clinical Oral Implants Research. 29 Suppl 16:69-77. https://doi.org/10.1111/clr.13342

MLA

Vancouver

Author

Jung, Ronald E ; Al-Nawas, Bilal ; Araujo, Mauricio ; Avila-Ortiz, Gustavo ; Barter, Stephen ; Brodala, Nadine ; Chappuis, Vivianne ; Chen, Bo ; De Souza, Andre ; Almeida, Ricardo Faria ; Fickl, Stefan ; Finelle, Gary ; Ganeles, Jeffrey ; Gholami, Hadi ; Hammerle, Christoph ; Jensen, Simon ; Jokstad, Asbjørn ; Katsuyama, Hideaki ; Kleinheinz, Johannes ; Kunavisarut, Chatchai ; Mardas, Nikos ; Monje, Alberto ; Papaspyridakos, Panos ; Payer, Michael ; Schiegnitz, Eik ; Smeets, Ralf ; Stefanini, Martina ; Ten Bruggenkate, Christiaan ; Vazouras, Konstantinos ; Weber, Hans-Peter ; Weingart, Dieter ; Windisch, Péter. / Group 1 ITI Consensus Report : The influence of implant length and design and medications on clinical and patient-reported outcomes. In: Clinical Oral Implants Research. 2018 ; Vol. 29 Suppl 16. pp. 69-77.

Bibtex

@article{ce591a38db3745bbb2447a0bdd7c59bc,
title = "Group 1 ITI Consensus Report: The influence of implant length and design and medications on clinical and patient-reported outcomes",
abstract = "OBJECTIVES: The aim of Working Group 1 was to address the influence of different local (implant length, diameter, and design) and systemic (medications) factors on clinical, radiographic, and patient-reported outcomes in implant dentistry. Focused questions on (a) short posterior dental implants (≤6 mm), (b) narrow diameter implants, (c) implant design (tapered compared to a non-tapered implant design), and (d) medication-related dental implant failures were addressed.MATERIALS AND METHODS: Four systematic reviews were prepared in advance of the Consensus Conference and were discussed among the participants of Group 1. Consensus statements, clinical recommendations, and recommendations for future research were based on structured group discussions until consensus was reached among the entire expert Group 1. The statements were then presented and accepted following further discussion and modifications as required by the plenary.RESULTS: Short implants (≤6 mm) revealed a survival rate ranging from 86.7{\%} to 100{\%}, whereas standard implant survival rate ranged from 95{\%} to 100{\%} with a follow-up from 1 to 5 years. Short implants demonstrated a higher variability and a higher Risk Ratio [RR: 1.24 (95{\%} CI: 0.63, 2.44, p = 0.54)] for failure compared to standard implants. Narrow diameter implants (NDI) have been classified into three categories: Category 1: Implants with a diameter of <2.5 mm ({"}Mini-implants{"}); Category 2: Implants with a diameter of 2.5 mm to <3.3 mm; Category 3: Implants with a diameter of 3.3 mm to 3.5 mm. Mean survival rates were 94.7 ± 5{\%}, 97.3 ± 5{\%} and 97.7 ± 2.3{\%} for category 1, 2 and 3. Tapered versus non-tapered implants demonstrated only insignificant differences regarding clinical, radiographic, and patient-reported outcomes. The intake of certain selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors and proton pump inhibitors is associated with a statistically significant increased implant failure rate. The intake of bisphosphonates related to the treatment of osteoporosis was not associated with an increased implant failure rate.CONCLUSIONS: It is concluded that short implants (≤6 mm) are a valid option in situations of reduced bone height to avoid possible morbidity associated with augmentation procedures; however, they reveal a higher variability and lower predictability in survival rates. Narrow diameter implants with diameters of 2.5 mm and more demonstrated no difference in implant survival rates compared to standard diameter implants. In contrast, it is concluded that narrow diameter implants with diameters of less than 2.5 mm exhibited lower survival rates compared to standard diameter implants. It is further concluded that there are no differences between tapered versus non-tapered dental implants. Certain medications such as selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors and proton pump inhibitors showed an association with a higher implant failure rate.",
author = "Jung, {Ronald E} and Bilal Al-Nawas and Mauricio Araujo and Gustavo Avila-Ortiz and Stephen Barter and Nadine Brodala and Vivianne Chappuis and Bo Chen and {De Souza}, Andre and Almeida, {Ricardo Faria} and Stefan Fickl and Gary Finelle and Jeffrey Ganeles and Hadi Gholami and Christoph Hammerle and Simon Jensen and Asbj{\o}rn Jokstad and Hideaki Katsuyama and Johannes Kleinheinz and Chatchai Kunavisarut and Nikos Mardas and Alberto Monje and Panos Papaspyridakos and Michael Payer and Eik Schiegnitz and Ralf Smeets and Martina Stefanini and {Ten Bruggenkate}, Christiaan and Konstantinos Vazouras and Hans-Peter Weber and Dieter Weingart and P{\'e}ter Windisch",
note = "{\circledC} 2018 The Authors. Clinical Oral Implants Research Published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.",
year = "2018",
month = "10",
doi = "10.1111/clr.13342",
language = "English",
volume = "29 Suppl 16",
pages = "69--77",
journal = "Clinical Oral Implants Research",
issn = "0905-7161",
publisher = "Wiley-Blackwell Munksgaard",

}

RIS

TY - JOUR

T1 - Group 1 ITI Consensus Report

T2 - The influence of implant length and design and medications on clinical and patient-reported outcomes

AU - Jung, Ronald E

AU - Al-Nawas, Bilal

AU - Araujo, Mauricio

AU - Avila-Ortiz, Gustavo

AU - Barter, Stephen

AU - Brodala, Nadine

AU - Chappuis, Vivianne

AU - Chen, Bo

AU - De Souza, Andre

AU - Almeida, Ricardo Faria

AU - Fickl, Stefan

AU - Finelle, Gary

AU - Ganeles, Jeffrey

AU - Gholami, Hadi

AU - Hammerle, Christoph

AU - Jensen, Simon

AU - Jokstad, Asbjørn

AU - Katsuyama, Hideaki

AU - Kleinheinz, Johannes

AU - Kunavisarut, Chatchai

AU - Mardas, Nikos

AU - Monje, Alberto

AU - Papaspyridakos, Panos

AU - Payer, Michael

AU - Schiegnitz, Eik

AU - Smeets, Ralf

AU - Stefanini, Martina

AU - Ten Bruggenkate, Christiaan

AU - Vazouras, Konstantinos

AU - Weber, Hans-Peter

AU - Weingart, Dieter

AU - Windisch, Péter

N1 - © 2018 The Authors. Clinical Oral Implants Research Published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.

PY - 2018/10

Y1 - 2018/10

N2 - OBJECTIVES: The aim of Working Group 1 was to address the influence of different local (implant length, diameter, and design) and systemic (medications) factors on clinical, radiographic, and patient-reported outcomes in implant dentistry. Focused questions on (a) short posterior dental implants (≤6 mm), (b) narrow diameter implants, (c) implant design (tapered compared to a non-tapered implant design), and (d) medication-related dental implant failures were addressed.MATERIALS AND METHODS: Four systematic reviews were prepared in advance of the Consensus Conference and were discussed among the participants of Group 1. Consensus statements, clinical recommendations, and recommendations for future research were based on structured group discussions until consensus was reached among the entire expert Group 1. The statements were then presented and accepted following further discussion and modifications as required by the plenary.RESULTS: Short implants (≤6 mm) revealed a survival rate ranging from 86.7% to 100%, whereas standard implant survival rate ranged from 95% to 100% with a follow-up from 1 to 5 years. Short implants demonstrated a higher variability and a higher Risk Ratio [RR: 1.24 (95% CI: 0.63, 2.44, p = 0.54)] for failure compared to standard implants. Narrow diameter implants (NDI) have been classified into three categories: Category 1: Implants with a diameter of <2.5 mm ("Mini-implants"); Category 2: Implants with a diameter of 2.5 mm to <3.3 mm; Category 3: Implants with a diameter of 3.3 mm to 3.5 mm. Mean survival rates were 94.7 ± 5%, 97.3 ± 5% and 97.7 ± 2.3% for category 1, 2 and 3. Tapered versus non-tapered implants demonstrated only insignificant differences regarding clinical, radiographic, and patient-reported outcomes. The intake of certain selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors and proton pump inhibitors is associated with a statistically significant increased implant failure rate. The intake of bisphosphonates related to the treatment of osteoporosis was not associated with an increased implant failure rate.CONCLUSIONS: It is concluded that short implants (≤6 mm) are a valid option in situations of reduced bone height to avoid possible morbidity associated with augmentation procedures; however, they reveal a higher variability and lower predictability in survival rates. Narrow diameter implants with diameters of 2.5 mm and more demonstrated no difference in implant survival rates compared to standard diameter implants. In contrast, it is concluded that narrow diameter implants with diameters of less than 2.5 mm exhibited lower survival rates compared to standard diameter implants. It is further concluded that there are no differences between tapered versus non-tapered dental implants. Certain medications such as selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors and proton pump inhibitors showed an association with a higher implant failure rate.

AB - OBJECTIVES: The aim of Working Group 1 was to address the influence of different local (implant length, diameter, and design) and systemic (medications) factors on clinical, radiographic, and patient-reported outcomes in implant dentistry. Focused questions on (a) short posterior dental implants (≤6 mm), (b) narrow diameter implants, (c) implant design (tapered compared to a non-tapered implant design), and (d) medication-related dental implant failures were addressed.MATERIALS AND METHODS: Four systematic reviews were prepared in advance of the Consensus Conference and were discussed among the participants of Group 1. Consensus statements, clinical recommendations, and recommendations for future research were based on structured group discussions until consensus was reached among the entire expert Group 1. The statements were then presented and accepted following further discussion and modifications as required by the plenary.RESULTS: Short implants (≤6 mm) revealed a survival rate ranging from 86.7% to 100%, whereas standard implant survival rate ranged from 95% to 100% with a follow-up from 1 to 5 years. Short implants demonstrated a higher variability and a higher Risk Ratio [RR: 1.24 (95% CI: 0.63, 2.44, p = 0.54)] for failure compared to standard implants. Narrow diameter implants (NDI) have been classified into three categories: Category 1: Implants with a diameter of <2.5 mm ("Mini-implants"); Category 2: Implants with a diameter of 2.5 mm to <3.3 mm; Category 3: Implants with a diameter of 3.3 mm to 3.5 mm. Mean survival rates were 94.7 ± 5%, 97.3 ± 5% and 97.7 ± 2.3% for category 1, 2 and 3. Tapered versus non-tapered implants demonstrated only insignificant differences regarding clinical, radiographic, and patient-reported outcomes. The intake of certain selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors and proton pump inhibitors is associated with a statistically significant increased implant failure rate. The intake of bisphosphonates related to the treatment of osteoporosis was not associated with an increased implant failure rate.CONCLUSIONS: It is concluded that short implants (≤6 mm) are a valid option in situations of reduced bone height to avoid possible morbidity associated with augmentation procedures; however, they reveal a higher variability and lower predictability in survival rates. Narrow diameter implants with diameters of 2.5 mm and more demonstrated no difference in implant survival rates compared to standard diameter implants. In contrast, it is concluded that narrow diameter implants with diameters of less than 2.5 mm exhibited lower survival rates compared to standard diameter implants. It is further concluded that there are no differences between tapered versus non-tapered dental implants. Certain medications such as selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors and proton pump inhibitors showed an association with a higher implant failure rate.

U2 - 10.1111/clr.13342

DO - 10.1111/clr.13342

M3 - Journal article

VL - 29 Suppl 16

SP - 69

EP - 77

JO - Clinical Oral Implants Research

JF - Clinical Oral Implants Research

SN - 0905-7161

ER -

ID: 56613453