Aim: The aim of this 10-year study (observation time 8-12 years, mean: 10 years) was to compare the survival rates, success rates and incidences of biological complications using three different implant designs of the ITI Dental Implant System.
Material and methods: In 89 dental patients treated comprehensively, a total of 112 hollow screw (HS), 49 hollow cylinder (HC) and 18 angulated hollow cylinder (AHC) implants were installed depending on the available bone volume and according to prosthetic needs. One and 10 years after surgical placement, clinical and radiographic parameters were assessed. The incidences of peri-implantitis according to various thresholds were registered over 10 years of maintenance.
Results: Success criteria at 10 years were set at: pocket probing depth (PPD)< or =5 mm, bleeding on probing (BoP)-, bone loss < 0.2 mm annually. The survival rate for HS was 95.4%, for HC 85.7% and for AHC 91.7%. Ninety percent of all the HS, 71% of the HC and 88% of the AHC did not present with an incidence of peri-implantitis over the 10 years, HC having significantly higher incidence of peri-implantitis than HS (P< 0.004). With the success criteria set above, a success rate for HS of 74%, for HC of 63% and for AHC of 61% was identified at 10 years. However, including a definition of PPD< or =6 mm, BoP - and bone loss < 0.2 mm annually for success, the rates for HS were 78%, for HC 65% and for AHC 67%, respectively. Basing success criteria purely on clinical parameters (without radiographic analysis), such as: PPD< or =5 mm and BoP-, the success rates increased to 90%, 76% and 89%, respectively. With PPD< or =6 mm and BoP - as success criteria chosen, the respective rates were 94%, 82% and 94% for HS, HC and AHC implants, respectively.
Conclusions: A significantly higher survival rate as well as a significantly lower incidence of peri-implantitis was identified for hollow screw design ITI Dental Implants after 10 years of service when compared to hollow cylinder design ITI Dental Implants (95.4% vs. 85.7%; 10% vs. 29%). Depending on the setting of the threshold criteria for success, success rates are highly variable and hence, reporting of success rates with elaboration on the criteria set appears crucial for comparison of different studies.