Document Type




Publication Date




Source Publication

Journal of Prosthodontics

Source ISSN



Purpose: This retrospective study was conducted at the Marquette University School of Dentistry to (1) characterize the implant patient population in a predoctoral clinic, (2) describe the implants inserted, and (3) provide information on implant failures.

Materials and Methods: The study cohort included 1091 patients who received 1918 dental implants between 2004 and 2012, and had their implants restored by a crown or a fixed dental prosthesis. Data were collected from patient records, entered in a database, and summarized in tables and figures. Contingency tables were prepared and analyzed by a chi-squared test. The cumulative survival probability of implants was described using a Kaplan-Meier survival curve. Univariate and multivariate frailty Cox regression models for clustered observations were computed to identify factors associated with implant failure.

Results: Mean patient age (±1 SD) at implantation was 59.7 ± 15.3 years; 53.9% of patients were females, 73.5% were Caucasians. Noble Biocare was the most frequently used implant brand (65.0%). Most implants had a regular-size diameter (59.3%). More implants were inserted in posterior (79.0%) than in anterior jaw regions. Mandibular posterior was the most frequently restored site (43%); 87.8% of implants were restored using single implant crowns. The overall implant-based cumulative survival rate was 96.4%. The patient-based implant survival rate was 94.6%. Implant failure risk was greater among patients than within patients (p < 0.05). Age (>65 years; hazard ratio [HR] = 3.2, p = 0.02), implant staging (two-stage; HR = 4.0, p < 0.001), and implant diameter (wide; HR = 0.4, p = 0.04) were statistically associated with implant failure.

Conclusions: Treatment with dental implants in a supervised predoctoral clinic environment resulted in survival rates similar to published results obtained in private practice or research clinics. Older age and implant staging increased failure risk, while the selection of a wide implant diameter was associated with a lower failure risk.


Accepted version. Journal of Prosthodontics, Vol 26, No. 6 (August 2017): 559-567. DOI. © 2017 Wiley. Used with permission.