See

discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/51867224

Success Criteria in Implant Dentistry: A

Systematic Review

Article in Journal of dental research December 2011

DOI: 10.1177/0022034511431252 Source: PubMed

CITATIONS READS

154 4,770

5 authors, including:

Panos Papaspyridakos Chun-Jung Chen

Columbia University Chi-Mei Medical Center
42 PUBLICATIONS 664 CITATIONS 15 PUBLICATIONS 451 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Medha Singh German O. Gallucci

Harvard University Harvard University
19 PUBLICATIONS 225 CITATIONS 69 PUBLICATIONS 1,719 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

A Meta-Analysis of Complications During Sinus Augmentation Procedure View project

Evaluations of the indication rate of ridge preservation for implant therapy: a retrospective study View
project

All content following this page was uploaded by German O. Gallucci on 27 March 2014.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 RESEARCH REPORTS
Clinical

P. Papaspyridakos1*, C.-J. Chen1,2,

M. Singh1, H.-P. Weber1,3,
Success Criteria in Implant
and G.O. Gallucci1 Dentistry: A Systematic Review
1
Harvard School of Dental Medicine, Department of
Restorative Dentistry & Biomaterials Sciences, 188 Longwood
Avenue, Boston, 02115, USA; 2Chi-Mei Medical Center,
Department of Dentistry, Liouying, Taiwan; and 3Tufts
University School of Dental Medicine, Department of
Prosthodontics and Operative Dentistry, Boston, MA, USA;
*corresponding author, panpapaspyridakos@gmail.com

J Dent Res X(X):xx-xx, XXXX

Abstract Introduction
The purpose of this study was to examine the most
frequently used criteria to define treatment success
in implant dentistry. An electronic MEDLINE/
T he commonly accepted criteria for the assessment of implant success were
proposed by Albrektsson and colleagues (Albrektsson et al., 1986), to iden-
tify clinical evidence of successful osseointegration and survival of implants.
PubMED search was conducted to identify ran-
Over the past three decades, implant success has been assessed by survival
domized controlled trials and prospective studies
rates, continuous prosthesis stability, radiographic bone loss, and absence
reporting on outcomes of implant dentistry. Only
of infection in the peri-implant soft tissues (Albrektsson et al., 1986; Smith
studies conducted with roughened surface implants
and Zarb, 1989; Buser et al., 1990; Albrektsson and Zarb, 1998; Misch et al.,
and at least five-year follow-up were included. Data
2008; Annibali et al., 2009).
were analyzed for success at the implant level,
Since then, new parameters have been introduced to assess success in the
peri-implant soft tissue, prosthetics, and patient
achieving of lifelike implant restorations. These include health status and
satisfaction. Most frequently reported criteria for suc-
natural-looking peri-implant soft tissues, as well as prosthodontic parameters,
cess at the implant level were mobility, pain, radiolu-
esthetics, and patient satisfaction. However, osseointegration remains the
cency, and peri-implant bone loss (> 1.5 mm), and
predominant parameter in implant dentistry. It seems logical that the current
for success at the peri-implant soft-tissue level,
definition of success criteria should be comprehensive, to include these addi-
suppuration, and bleeding. The criteria for success
tional factors (Furhauser et al., 2005; Meijer et al., 2005; Annibali et al.,
at the prosthetic level were the occurrence of techni-
2009; Belser et al., 2009).
cal complications/prosthetic maintenance, adequate
There is still a lack of homogeneity in the dental literature on reporting
function, and esthetics during the five-year period.
complications at both implant and prosthetic levels. A previous systematic
The criteria at patient satisfaction level were dis-
review has shown that as much as 38.7% of all implant-supported fixed par-
comfort and paresthesia, satisfaction with appear-
tial dentures (FPD) for partially edentulous patients had some type of compli-
ance, and ability to chew/taste. Success in implant
cation during the observation period of 5 yrs (Pjetursson et al., 2007). This
dentistry should ideally evaluate a long-term pri-
finding highlights the importance of including prosthesis success in analyses
mary outcome of an implant-prosthetic complex as
of the overall success of dental implants.
a whole.
The aim of this systematic review was to examine the most frequently used
criteria to define treatment success in implant dentistry.
KEY WORDS: success, survival, criteria, dental
implants, implant complications, dental prostheses.
Materials & Methods
Search Strategy
An electronic search in the MEDLINE/PubMED database was performed for
studies published in English from January 1980 until October 2010. The
search strategy included the following key word combinations: success cri-
teria AND implant, success rates AND implant, survival rates AND
DOI: 10.1177/0022034511431252
implant, and outcomes AND implant dentistry.
Received July 7, 2011; Last revision October 28, 2011;
The electronic search was supplemented by a manual search of the bibliog-
Accepted November 2, 2011 raphies of all articles and related reviews that were selected for full-text reading.
Reference manager software (Endnotes, Thomson Reuters, New York, NY,
International & American Associations for Dental Research USA) was used to sort selected references and to discard duplicates.

1
2 Papaspyridakos et al. J Dent Res X(X) XXXX
The following inclusion criteria were used to conduct the
studies selection:
randomized controlled clinical trials (RCT) and prospec-
tive studies with minimum five-year follow-up,
studies reporting on roughened surface implants,
studies with at least 10 patients, and
studies reporting on success/survival criteria used to
assess treatment outcomes.
Titles and abstracts were initially screened for inclusion by
two independent and calibrated reviewers. All titles and abstracts
selected by the two reviewers were individually discussed
before inclusion for full-text reading. The full-text reading of
related publications and data extraction were carried out inde-
pendently by the two reviewers. In cases where information was
not clear, the authors of a given study were contacted via e-mail
to clarify the issue.
Outcome Variables
The primary outcome variable was determined by the success
rate as presented in the selected articles. To ensure the homoge-
neity of the result, we then grouped studies according to four
well-differentiated clinical situations: implant fixed complete
dental prostheses (FCDP), implant overdentures (IOD), implant
fixed partial dentures (FPD), and implant single crowns (SC).
Secondary outcome variables were the number of parameters
used to define success, such as implant fixtures, peri-implant
soft tissue, prosthesis, and patients subjective evaluation.
Assessment of Study Quality
Following the selection of eligible papers on the basis of inclu-
sion and exclusion criteria, studies were rated on their quality.
Specific study-design-related information such as randomiza-
tion (if applicable), patient and site characteristics, patient selec-
tion, intervention, evaluation method, outcome, and follow-up
was individually assessed for all included publications. The risk
of bias was defined as Low, Medium, or High. To reduce the risk
of bias as much as possible, we excluded studies showing High
risk of bias.
Statistical Analysis
Given the heterogeneity among the criteria used to define treat-
ment outcomes, data were analyzed from a descriptive point of
view. Inter-reviewer agreement was determined with the use of
Cohens kappa K-statistics.
Results
The electronic search in the MEDLINE/PubMED database for
studies published from January 1980 until October 2010 accord-
ing to the key words success criteria AND implant, success
rates AND implant, survival rates AND implant, and
outcomes AND implant dentistry yielded 1524 hits after
duplicate references were discarded. The subsequent search at
the title level yielded 925 titles (k-score = 0.7) and further at the
abstract level identified 402 abstracts (k-score = 0.7). The
abstract investigation revealed 258 articles for full-text reading
(k-score = 0.85).
Excluded Studies
Out of the 258 studies selected for full-text reading, 233 were
excluded. The studies were excluded when the follow-up period
was less than 5 yrs, if a machined implant surface was used, if
fewer than 10 patients were included in the study, and if a
detailed report on success criteria used for assessment was miss-
ing. In addition, multiple publications on the same cohort of
patients were also excluded; only the most longitudinal was
included. Only RCTs and prospective studies were considered,
since they represent the highest level of evidence. The rationale
for excluding machined surface implants was that predomi-
nantly roughened surface implants are used currently.
Study Characteristics/Included Studies
The electronic and manual search yielded 2 randomized clinical
trials and 23 prospective studies that satisfied the inclusion cri-
teria and were analyzed. In total, 25 publications fulfilled the
inclusion criteria and were suitable for analysis. Some of the
included articles had mixed data reporting on more than one
type of prosthesis (Table 1). Of these 25 publications, only 2 had
a low risk of bias, 8 articles reported on implant fixed complete
dental prostheses (FCDP), 7 articles on implant overdentures
(IOD), 12 articles on implant fixed partial dentures (FPD), and
14 articles on implant single crowns (SC) (Buser et al., 1997;
Deporter et al., 1999; Behneke et al., 2000; Weber et al., 2000;
Gotfredsen and Karlsson, 2001; Mericske-Stern et al., 2001;
Ferrigno et al., 2002; Chiapasco and Gatti, 2003; Astrand et al.,
2004; Gotfredsen, 2004; Romeo et al., 2004, 2009; Zinsli et al.,
2004; Bornstein et al., 2005; Rasmusson et al., 2005; Wennstrom
et al., 2005; Blanes et al., 2007; Glauser et al., 2007; Fischer et al.,
2008; Roccuzzo et al., 2008; Al Fadda et al., 2009; Degidi
et al., 2009; Gallucci et al., 2009a; Ma et al., 2010; Payer et al.,
2010).
The four most frequently used parameters were related to
implant fixtures, peri-implant soft tissue, prosthesis, and
patients subjective evaluation (Table 2). The percentage of
clinical studies reporting on each of these parameters for success
in implant dentistry is shown in Table 3.
The most frequently reported criteria for success at the
implant level were mobility, pain, radiolucency, and peri-implant
bone loss (> 1.5 mm); those for peri-implant soft-tissue level
were suppuration, bleeding, and probing pocket depth. The cri-
teria used to assess success at the prosthetic level were the
occurrence of technical complications/prosthetic maintenance,
adequate function, and esthetics during the five-year period. The
criteria reported to assess patient satisfaction level were discom-
fort, satisfaction with appearance, and ability to function and
chew.
As shown in Table 4, the reported success rate consistently
decreased when the number of parameters included for the
assessment of success was increased. In the first group of
J Dent Res X(X) XXXX Success Criteria in Implant Dentistry 3

Table 1. Selected Articles Classified according to Their Implant Prosthetic Design

Patients/ Risk of Follow- up,

Study Study Design Implants Bias yrs Parameters Criteria Success/Survival Rate

Implant fixed complete dental prostheses (FCDP) for edentulous patients

Gallucci et al., Prospective 45/237 M 5 4 Self-defined criteria 86.7%
2009
Degidi et al., Prospective 38/284 M 5 3 Based on Albrektsson 100% for implants;
2009 et al., 1986 100% for prostheses
Fischer et al., RCT 24/139 L 5 3 Self-defined criteria 95.2% for implants;
2008 100% for prostheses
Rasmusson Prospective 36/199 M 10 1 Self-defined criteria 96.9% for implants;
et al., 2005 100% for prostheses
Romeo et al., Prospective 255/759 M 1.3~7 4 Based on Albrektsson 63.8% for prostheses
2004 (Mean: et al., 1986 & Buser
3.85) et al., 1990
Astrand et al., Prospective 66/371 M 5 3 Based on Albrektsson 96.3%
2004 et al., 1986
Ferrigno et al., Prospective 233/1286 M Up to 10 yrs 3 Based on Buser et al., 95% for 5 yrs; 92.7%
2002 1990 for 10 yrs
Buser et al., Prospective 1003/2359 M Up to 8 yrs 3 Based on Buser et al., 97.3% for 5 yrs;
1997 1990 93.3% for 8 yrs
Implant overdentures (IOD) for edentulous patients
Ma et al., RCT 79/158 H 10 2 Based on Albrektsson 85.9% for 5 yrs;
2010 et al., 1986 74.5% for 10 yrs
Al Fadda et al., Prospective 77/178 M 5 3 Based on Albrektsson 98%
2009 & Zarb, 1998
Romeo et al., Prospective 255/759 M 1.3~7 4 Based on Albrektsson 63.8% for prostheses
2004 (Mean: et al., 1986 & Buser
3.85) et al., 1990
Zinsli et al., Prospective 149/298 M 10 1 Based on Buser et al., 98.7%
2004 1990
Chiapasco and Prospective 82/328 M 3~8 (mean: 2 Based on Albrektsson 88.2%
Gatti, 2003 5.2) et al., 1986
Deporter et al., Prospective 46/134 M 5~6 3 Based on Albrektsson 83.3% for 5 yrs
1999 et al., 1986
Buser et al., Prospective 1003/2359 Up to 8 yrs 3 Based on Buser et al., 97.3% for 5 yrs;
1997 1990 93.3% for 8 yrs
Implant Fixed Partial Dentures (FPD) for partially edentulous patients
Payer et al., Prospective 24/40 M 5 1 Self-defined criteria 92.5%
2010
Romeo et al., Prospective 45/116 M 8.2 4 Self-defined criteria 90.5% for implants;
2009 57.7% for
prostheses
Degidi et al., Prospective 72/219 M 5 3 Based on Albrektsson 99.4% for implants,
2009 et al., 1986 100% for prostheses
Blanes et al., Prospective 83/192 M 5~10 (mean: 1 Based on Buser et al., 97.9%
2007 6) 1990
Glauser et al., Prospective 38/102 M 5 3 Based on Albrektsson 97.1%
2007 et al., 1986
Bornstein et al., Prospective 51/104 M 5 3 Based on Buser et al., 99%
2005 1990
Romeo et al., Prospective 255/759 M 1.3~7 4 Self-defined criteria 63.8% for prostheses
2004 (Mean:
3.85)
Zinsli et al., Prospective 149/298 M 10 2 Based on Buser et al., 98.7%
2004 1990
Gotfredsen and Prospective 40/117 M 5 2 Self-defined criteria 97.6%
Karlsson,
2001
Weber et al., Prospective 46/112 M 5 2 Self-defined criteria 99.1%
2000

(continued)
4 Papaspyridakos et al. J Dent Res X(X) XXXX

Table 1.(Continued)

Patients/ Risk of Follow- up,

Study Study Design Implants Bias yrs Parameters Criteria Success/Survival Rate

Behneke et al., Prospective 55/114 M 5 3 Self-defined criteria 89%

2000
Buser et al., Prospective 1003/2359 M Up to 8 yrs 3 Based on Buser et al., 97.3% for 5 yrs;
1997 1990 93.3% for 8 yrs
Implant single crowns (SC) for partially edentulous patients missing single teeth
Payer et al., Prospective 24/40 M 5 1 Self-defined criteria 92.5%
2010
Degidi et al., Prospective 45/45 M 5 3 Based on Albrektsson 100% for implants;
2009 et al., 1986 100% for prostheses
Roccuzzo et Prospective 27/106 M 5 2 Self-defined criteria 100%
al., 2008
Blanes et al., Prospective 83/192 M 5~10 (mean: 1 Based on Buser et al., 97.9%
2007 6) 1990
Glauser et al., Prospective 38/102 M 5 3 Based on Albrektsson 97.1%
2007 et al., 1986
Bornstein et al., Prospective 51/104 M 5 3 Based on Buser et al., 99%
2005 1990
Wennstrom et Prospective 36/40 M 5 2 Self-defined criteria 97.7%
al., 2005
Gotfredsen, Prospective 20/20 M 5 2 Self-defined criteria 100% for implants;
2004 96% for prostheses
Romeo et al., Prospective 255/759 M 1.3~7 4 Based on Albrektsson 75.6% for prostheses
2004 (Mean: et al., 1986 & Buser
3.85) et al., 1990
Zinsli et al., Prospective 149/298 M 10 2 Based on Buser et al., 98.7%
2004 1990
Mericske-Stern Prospective 72/109 M 1~9 (mean: 2 Self-defined criteria 99.1%
et al., 2001 4.3)
Weber et al., Prospective 46/112 M 5 2 Self-defined criteria 99.1%
2000
Behneke et al., Prospective 55/114 M 5 3 Self-defined criteria 89%
2000
Buser et al., Prospective 1003/2359 M Up to 8 years 3 Based on Buser et al., 97.3% for 5 yrs;
1997 1990 93.3% for 8 yrs

FCDP, implant fixed complete dental prostheses; IOD, implant overdentures; RCT, randomized clinical trial; FPD, fixed partial denture; SC, single
crown; L, low risk of bias; M, medium risk of bias.

completely edentulous patients with implant FCDPs, for every
additional parameter included in the success criteria, the success
rates dropped by an average of 7.2%. In the group of completely
edentulous patients restored with IODs, the success rates
dropped by an average of 6.9% for every parameter added. For
the group of partially edentulous patients, success rates decreased
by an average of 9.4% for every additional parameter included.
Finally, in the group of patients restored with implant SCs, the
success rates dropped by an average of 4.1% for every parame-
ter added.
Discussion
A clinical trial will usually define or specify a primary endpoint
as a measure of success of the therapy investigated. This is not
common in the dental implant literature, where survival/success
rates of single parameters are often presented. Marginal bone
levels, measured with periapical radiographs, are a commonly
used parameter for the assessment of implant success. Several
implant systems with a roughened surface demonstrate progres-
sive crestal bone loss and consequently ongoing loss of implants
even after 5 or more yrs. However, the introduction of new
implant surfaces and prosthetic connections has added new
dimensions to implant dentistry. Roughened-surface implants
have proved to have a higher survival rate than machined-surface
implants (Lambert et al., 2009). Platform switching and inward
shifting of the connection microgap have been shown to reduce
crestal bone remodeling (Prosper et al., 2009; Trammell et al.,
2009). Thus, peri-implant bone remodeling, universally accepted
as being up to 2 mm during the first year of function, followed by
a maximum of 0.2 mm annually thereafter, may now be subject to
question as a reliable success criterion. These examples of single
parameters used as success criteria could be defined as surrogate
endpoints, often to compensate for the lack of well-defined
J Dent Res X(X) XXXX Success Criteria in Implant Dentistry 5

Table 2. Reported Success Criteria as Described in All Selected Articles

FCDP FPD IOD SC

Success Criteria (8 articles) (12 articles) (7 articles) (14 articles)

Implant level Pain 6 9 7 11

Bone loss at 1st year < 1.5 mm 5 9 4 9
Annual bone loss < 0.2 mm thereafter 4 8 5 7
Radiolucency 5 9 5 11
Mobility 7 10 7 12
Infection 5 6 6 9
Peri-implant soft tissue Probing depth > 3 mm 2 2 1 2
Suppuration 4 9 4 10
Bleeding 3 0 0 0
Swelling 1 0 0 0
Plaque Index 3 0 0 0
Width of keratinized mucosa > 1.5 mm 1 0 0 0
Recession 1 0 0 0
Prosthetic level Minor complications (chairside approach) 2 0 0 0
Major complications/failures 2 1 0 0
Esthetics 1 0 0 0
Functional 1 3 2 3
Patient satisfaction Discomfort/paresthesia 5 1 5 5
Satisfaction with appearance 1 5 0 1
Ability to chew 1 0 0 0
Ability to taste 1 0 0 0
General satisfaction 1 0 0 0

Table 3. Percentage of Articles Reporting on Each of the Four Main Categories Identified as Parameters for Success

FCDP FPD IOD SC

Parameters (8 articles) (12 articles) (7 articles) (14 articles)

Implant level 100 100 100 100

Peri-implant soft-tissue level 50 83 57 71
Prosthetic level 25 33 29 21
Patient satisfaction level 62.5 42 71 36

FCDP, implant fixed complete dental prosthesis; FPD, implant fixed partial denture; IOD, implant overdenture; SC, implant single crown.

primary outcomes. For instance, bone loss or any other finding
alone within an implant prosthetic rehabilitation should not be
considered as the primary outcome when success is assessed. In
contrast, it appears inaccurate to assess several outcomes sepa-
rately when the implant-prosthetic complex as a whole is neces-
sary for successful oral rehabilitation. Instead, current advances in
contemporary oral implantology, coupled with patients high
treatment expectations, underline the necessity for more compre-
hensive definition of success criteria for implant/prosthodontics
procedures. It seems evident that implant survival rates per se,
without consideration of a clinical outcome that reports on the
implant/prosthodontic complex as a whole rather than its indi-
vidual aspects, would no longer suffice to assess the clinical effi-
ciency of current implant prosthetic methodologies.
Gallucci et al. proposed success criteria for implant FCDPs
based on implant, peri-implant tissues, prosthodontic, and sub-
jective parameters (Gallucci et al., 2009a). They reported a
95.5% survival rate vs. an 86.7% success rate when their pro-
posed success criteria were applied. FCDPs were deemed as
successful when a total of four or fewer complications (mild or
moderate severity) were encountered, and these could be
addressed chair-side in a single visit. Additionally, patient satis-
faction with overall treatment was rated good or excellent for
the treatment outcome to be considered successful.
Well-defined criteria should ideally be used for reporting and
assessing outcomes as well as biological and technical compli-
cations (Eckert et al., 2005). A systematic review showed that as
much as 38.7% of all implant-supported FPDs for partially
edentulous patients had some type of complication during an
observation period of at least 5 yrs (Pjetursson et al., 2007). This
highlights the importance of including prosthetic outcomes in
analyses of the overall success of implant dentistry.
In this systematic review, the four most frequently used
parameters for measuring outcomes with dental implants were
6 Papaspyridakos et al. J Dent Res X(X) XXXX

Table 4. Reported Success Rate According to the Number of Parameters Included for Assessment

FCDP (8 articles) FPD (12 articles) IOD (7 articles) SC (14 articles)

# of Parameters
Included for
Assessment of Reported Range of Reported Range of Reported Range of Reported Range of
Success Rate Articles Success Rate Articles Success Rate Articles Success Rate Articles Success Rate

1 8 (100%) 97.3%-100% 12 (100%) 92.5%-100% 7 (100%) 63.8%-98.7% 14 (100%) 75.6%-100%

2 None None 3 (25%) 98.7%-100% 2 (29%) 74.5%-88.2% 6 (43%) 96%-99.1%
3 5 (62.5%) 92.7%-100% 5 (42%) 95.3%-98.8% 3 (43%) 83.3%-98% 5 (36%) 89%-100%
4 2 (25%) 63.8%-86.7% 2 (17%) 57.7%-63.8% 1 (14%) 63.8% 1 (7%) 75.6%

related to the implant level, peri-implant soft-tissue level, pros-
thesis level, and the patients subjective assessment. The
reported success rate consistently decreased when the number of
parameters included for assessment of success was increased
(Table 4). When an additional success parameter was included
in the outcome assessment, then the success rate dropped sig-
nificantly for all four groups of patients. This is of paramount
importance when it comes to selecting a treatment plan. Only a
few of the currently used protocols have been assessed with
comprehensive success criteria and therefore can be considered
to have some degree of scientific or clinical validation (Gallucci
et al., 2009b).
The four most frequently used parameters for assessing suc-
cess were identified through the full-text reading and were
related to implant level, peri-implant soft tissue, prosthesis, and
patients subjective evaluation. These parameters were the most
commonly used in the dental literature that was systematically
reviewed. An attempt to list these parameters in the order of
importance seems difficult, because successful osseointegration
as the baseline and milestone of implant therapy cannot be
directly compared with patient satisfaction, which is equally
important.
Another issue that needs to be addressed is a patient-centered
outcome and patient satisfaction with prosthesis. A classification
of treatment outcomes with dental implant therapy has been
previously proposed (Guckes et al., 1996). This classification, in
addition to implant longevity/survival, included patient-
centered aspects of the treatment outcome, namely, physiologi-
cal, psychological, and economic impact. For the assessment of
esthetic outcomes, objective criteria like Pink Esthetic Scores
(PES) and White Esthetic Scores (WES) have been proposed,
but these do not reflect the patients subjective opinion about the
outcome of therapy (Furhauser et al., 2005; Belser et al., 2009).
The clinicians objective evaluation and the patients subjective
perception of a successful outcome often do not agree
(Vilhjalmsson et al., 2011). According to Levi et al., patient
satisfaction with overall treatment should be rated good or
excellent for the treatment outcome to be considered successful
(Levi et al., 2003).
Esthetics is also very important in dentistry, underscoring
the necessity for the inclusion of more factors in the success
criteria assessment for implant prostheses. The focus has
shifted from implant survival to the creation of lifelike implant
restorations with natural-looking peri-implant soft tissues.
Through the years, multiple modifications have been made to
include other parameters such as esthetics as a method to measure
success.
Future Directions For Research
Clinical studies included in the systematic review mainly
used implant and peri-implant soft-tissue parameters for
measuring success, while the prosthesis assessment and
patient satisfaction parameters were least used.
Success in implant dentistry should ideally evaluate a
long-term primary outcome of an implant-prosthetic
complex as a whole.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
This study was supported by the Department of Restorative
Dentistry and Biomaterials Sciences, Harvard School of Dental
Medicine. The authors declared no conflicts of interest with
respect to the authorship and/or publication of this article.
References
Al Fadda SA, Attard NJ, David LA (2009). Five-year clinical results of
immediately loaded dental implants using mandibular overdentures. Int
J Prosthodont 22:368-373.
Albrektsson T, Zarb GA (1998). Determinants of correct clinical reporting.
Int J Prosthodont 11:517-521.
Albrektsson T, Zarb G, Worthington P, Eriksson AR (1986). The long-term
efficacy of currently used dental implants: a review and proposed crite-
ria of success. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 1:11-25.
Annibali S, Bignozzi I, La Monaca G, Cristalli MP (2009). Usefulness of
the aesthetic result as a success criterion for implant therapy: a
review. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res [epub ahead of print Aug 6,
2009] (in press).
Astrand P, Engquist B, Dahlgren S, Grondahl K, Engquist E, Feldmann H
(2004). Astra Tech and Brnemark system implants: a 5-year prospective
study of marginal bone reactions. Clin Oral Implants Res 15:413-420.
Behneke A, Behneke N, dHoedt B (2000). The longitudinal clinical effec-
tiveness of ITI solid-screw implants in partially edentulous patients: a
5-year follow-up report. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 15:633-645.
Belser UC, Grutter L, Vailati F, Bornstein MM, Weber HP, Buser D (2009).
Outcome evaluation of early placed maxillary anterior single-tooth
implants using objective esthetic criteria: a cross-sectional, retrospec-
tive study in 45 patients with a 2- to 4-year follow-up using pink and
white esthetic scores. J Periodontol 80:140-151.
J Dent Res X(X) XXXX Success Criteria in Implant Dentistry 7
Blanes RJ, Bernard JP, Blanes ZM, Belser UC (2007). A 10-year prospective
study of ITI dental implants placed in the posterior region. I: Clinical
and radiographic results. Clin Oral Implants Res 18:699-706.
Bornstein MM, Schmid B, Belser UC, Lussi A, Buser D (2005). Early load-
ing of non-submerged titanium implants with a sandblasted and acid-
etched surface. 5-year results of a prospective study in partially
edentulous patients. Clin Oral Implants Res 16:631-638.
Buser D, Weber HP, Lang NP (1990). Tissue integration of non-submerged
implants. 1-year results of a prospective study with 100 ITI hollow-
cylinder and hollow-screw implants. Clin Oral Implants Res 1:33-40.
Buser D, Mericske-Stern R, Bernard JP, Behneke A, Behneke N, Hirt HP,
et al. (1997). Long-term evaluation of non-submerged ITI implants.
Part 1: 8-year life table analysis of a prospective multi-center study with
2359 implants. Clin Oral Implants Res 8:161-172.
Chiapasco M, Gatti C (2003). Implant-retained mandibular overdentures
with immediate loading: a 3- to 8-year prospective study on 328
implants. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res 5:29-38.
Degidi M, Iezzi G, Perrotti V, Piattelli A (2009). Comparative analysis of
immediate functional loading and immediate nonfunctional loading to
traditional healing periods: a 5-year follow-up of 550 dental implants.
Clin Implant Dent Relat Res 11:257-266.
Deporter D, Watson P, Pharoah M, Levy D, Todescan R (1999). Five- to six-year
results of a prospective clinical trial using the ENDOPORE dental implant
and a mandibular overdenture. Clin Oral Implants Res 10:95-102.
Eckert SE, Choi YG, Sanchez AR, Koka S (2005). Comparison of dental
implant systems: quality of clinical evidence and prediction of 5-year
survival. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 20:406-415.
Ferrigno N, Laureti M, Fanali S, Grippaudo G (2002). A long-term follow-up
study of non-submerged ITI implants in the treatment of totally edentu-
lous jaws. Part I: Ten-year life table analysis of a prospective multicenter
study with 1286 implants. Clin Oral Implants Res 13:260-273.
Fischer K, Stenberg T, Hedin M, Sennerby L (2008). Five-year results from
a randomized, controlled trial on early and delayed loading of implants
supporting full-arch prosthesis in the edentulous maxilla. Clin Oral
Implants Res 19:433-441.
Furhauser R, Florescu D, Benesch T, Haas R, Mailath G, Watzek G (2005).
Evaluation of soft tissue around single-tooth implant crowns: the pink
esthetic score. Clin Oral Implants Res 16: 639-644.
Gallucci GO, Doughtie CB, Hwang JW, Fiorellini JP, Weber HP (2009a).
Five-year results of fixed implant-supported rehabilitations with distal
cantilevers for the edentulous mandible. Clin Oral Implants Res
20:601-607.
Gallucci GO, Morton D, Weber HP (2009b). Loading protocols for dental
implants in edentulous patients. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants
24(Suppl):132-146.
Glauser R, Zembic A, Ruhstaller P, Windisch S (2007). Five-year results of
implants with an oxidized surface placed predominantly in soft quality
bone and subjected to immediate occlusal loading. J Prosthet Dent 97(6
Suppl):59S-68S.
Gotfredsen K (2004). A 5-year prospective study of single-tooth replace-
ments supported by the Astra Tech implant: a pilot study. Clin Implant
Dent Relat Res 6:1-8.
Gotfredsen K, Karlsson U (2001). A prospective 5-year study of fixed partial
prostheses supported by implants with machined and TiO2-blasted sur-
face. J Prosthodont 10: 2-7.
Guckes AD, Scurria MS, Shugars DA (1996). A conceptual framework for
understanding outcomes of oral implant therapy. J Prosthet Dent
75:633-639.
Lambert FE, Weber HP, Susarla SM, Belser UC, Gallucci GO (2009).
Descriptive analysis of implant and prosthodontic survival rates with
fixed implant-supported rehabilitations in the edentulous maxilla. J
Periodontol 80:1220-1230.
View publication stats
Levi A, Psoter WJ, Agar JR, Reisine ST, Taylor TD (2003). Patient self-
reported satisfaction with maxillary anterior dental implant treatment.
Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 18:113-120.
Ma S, Tawse-Smith A, Thomson WM, Payne AG (2010). Marginal bone loss
with mandibular two-implant overdentures using different loading pro-
tocols and attachment systems: 10-year outcomes. Int J Prosthodont
23:321-332.
Meijer HJ, Stellingsma K, Meijndert L, Raghoebar GM (2005). A new index
for rating aesthetics of implant-supported single crowns and adjacent
soft tissuesthe Implant Crown Aesthetic Index. Clin Oral Implants
Res 16:645-649.
Mericske-Stern R, Grutter L, Rosch R, Mericske E (2001). Clinical evalua-
tion and prosthetic complications of single tooth replacements by non-
submerged implants. Clin Oral Implants Res 12:309-318.
Misch CE, Perel ML, Wang HL, Sammartino G, Galindo-Moreno P, Trisi P,
et al. (2008). Implant success, survival, and failure: the International
Congress of Oral Implantologists (ICOI) Pisa Consensus Conference.
Implant Dent 17:5-15.
Payer M, Heschl A, Wimmer G, Wegscheider W, Kirmeier R, Lorenzoni M
(2010). Immediate provisional restoration of screw-type implants in the
posterior mandible: results after 5 years of clinical function. Clin Oral
Implants Res 21:815-821.
Pjetursson BE, Sailer I, Zwahlen M, Hmmerle CH (2007). A systematic
review of the survival and complication rates of all-ceramic and metal-
ceramic reconstructions after an observation period of at least 3 years.
Part I: Single crowns. Clin Oral Implants Res 18(Suppl 3):73-85; erra-
tum in Clin Oral Implants Res 19:326-328, 2008.
Prosper L, Redaelli S, Pasi M, Zarone F, Radaelli G, Gherlone EF (2009). A
randomized prospective multicenter trial evaluating the platform-
switching technique for the prevention of postrestorative crestal bone
loss. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 24:299-308.
Rasmusson L, Roos J, Bystedt H (2005). A 10-year follow-up study of tita-
nium dioxide-blasted implants. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res 7:36-42.
Roccuzzo M, Aglietta M, Bunino M, Bonino L (2008). Early loading of
sandblasted and acid-etched implants: a randomized-controlled double-
blind split-mouth study. Five-year results. Clin Oral Implants Res 19:148-152.
Romeo E, Lops D, Margutti E, Ghisolfi M, Chiapasco M, Vogel G (2004).
Long-term survival and success of oral implants in the treatment of full
and partial arches: a 7-year prospective study with the ITI dental
implant system. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 19:247-259.
Romeo E, Tomasi C, Finini I, Casentini P, Lops D (2009). Implant-supported
fixed cantilever prosthesis in partially edentulous jaws: a cohort pro-
spective study. Clin Oral Implants Res 20:1278-1285.
Smith DE, Zarb GA (1989). Criteria for success of osseointegrated endosse-
ous implants. J Prosthet Dent 62:567-572.
Trammell K, Geurs NC, ONeal SJ, Liu PR, Haigh SJ, McNeal S, et al.
(2009). A prospective, randomized, controlled comparison of platform-
switched and matched-abutment implants in short-span partial denture
situations. Int J Periodont Rest Dent 29:599-605.
Vilhjalmsson VH, Klock KS, Storksen K, Bardsen A (2011). Aesthetics of
implant-supported single anterior maxillary crowns evaluated by objec-
tive indices and participants perceptions. Clin Oral Implants Res [epub
ahead of print March 28, 2011] (in press).
Weber HP, Crohin CC, Fiorellini JP (2000). A 5-year prospective clinical
and radiographic study of non-submerged dental implants. Clin Oral
Implants Res 11:144-153.
Wennstrom JL, Ekestubbe A, Grondahl K, Karlsson S, Lindhe J (2005).
Implant-supported single-tooth restorations: a 5-year prospective study.
J Clin Periodontol 32:567-574.
Zinsli B, Sagesser T, Mericske E, Mericske-Stern R (2004). Clinical evalu-
ation of small-diameter ITI implants: a prospective study. Int J Oral
Maxillofac Implants 19:92-99.