Journal of pharmacy & bioallied sciences · 2025
Comparison Between the Long-Term Survival Rates of Tooth Preservation and Dental Implants: An In Vivo Study.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Wetam Rupali Baban, Vaniya Chirag R, Biswas Snigdha, Chamanthi Palapati, Mohanty Gatha, Karade Priyatam, Rai Sajni
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: The long-term prognosis of natural teeth and dental implants has been a critical subject in restorative dentistry. While dental implants offer a predictable solution for missing teeth, preserving natural dentition is often preferred when feasible.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: A total of 200 participants aged between 25 and 65 years were enrolled in this prospective in vivo study, conducted from January 2014 to January 2024. Group A consisted of 100 patients with endodontically treated and periodontally maintained natural teeth, while Group B included 100 patients rehabilitated with single dental implants. Survival was defined as the functional presence of the tooth/implant without the need for extraction or removal. Patients were evaluated annually for mobility, bone loss, peri-implantitis, or secondary caries using clinical and radiographic criteria. Statistical analysis was conducted using the Kaplan-Meier survival estimate and Chi-square test with significance set at P < 0.05.
RESULTS: After a 10-year follow-up, the overall survival rate was 88% for preserved natural teeth and 92% for dental implants. Group A showed failures primarily due to vertical root fractures and recurrent periodontal infections, while Group B experienced failures due to peri-implantitis and biomechanical overload. The difference in survival was not statistically significant (P = 0.172), indicating comparable long-term outcomes between both interventions.
CONCLUSION: Tooth preservation and dental implants demonstrated similar long-term survival rates in this study. Preserving natural dentition remains a viable and effective option when clinical conditions permit, with dental implants serving as a reliable alternative when tooth retention is unfeasible.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: A total of 200 participants aged between 25 and 65 years were enrolled in this prospective in vivo study, conducted from January 2014 to January 2024. Group A consisted of 100 patients with endodontically treated and periodontally maintained natural teeth, while Group B included 100 patients rehabilitated with single dental implants. Survival was defined as the functional presence of the tooth/implant without the need for extraction or removal. Patients were evaluated annually for mobility, bone loss, peri-implantitis, or secondary caries using clinical and radiographic criteria. Statistical analysis was conducted using the Kaplan-Meier survival estimate and Chi-square test with significance set at P < 0.05.
RESULTS: After a 10-year follow-up, the overall survival rate was 88% for preserved natural teeth and 92% for dental implants. Group A showed failures primarily due to vertical root fractures and recurrent periodontal infections, while Group B experienced failures due to peri-implantitis and biomechanical overload. The difference in survival was not statistically significant (P = 0.172), indicating comparable long-term outcomes between both interventions.
CONCLUSION: Tooth preservation and dental implants demonstrated similar long-term survival rates in this study. Preserving natural dentition remains a viable and effective option when clinical conditions permit, with dental implants serving as a reliable alternative when tooth retention is unfeasible.