To the top

Page Manager: Webmaster
Last update: 9/11/2012 3:13 PM

Tell a friend about this page
Print version

A qualitative and quantit… - University of Gothenburg, Sweden Till startsida
To content Read more about how we use cookies on

A qualitative and quantitative method for evaluating implant success: a 5-year retrospective analysis of the Brånemark implant.

Journal article
Authors Johan Roos
Lars Sennerby
Ulf Lekholm
Torsten Jemt
Kerstin Gröndahl
Tomas Albrektsson
Published in The International journal of oral & maxillofacial implants
Volume 12
Issue 4
Pages 504-14
ISSN 0882-2786
Publication year 1997
Published at Institute of Odontology, Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery
Institute of Surgical Sciences, Department of Biomaterials
Institute of Odontology, Department of Prosthetic Dentistry/Dental Technology
Institute of Odontology, Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Radiology
Pages 504-14
Language en
Keywords Adult, Aged, Aged, 80 and over, Alveolar Bone Loss, etiology, radiography, Bone Resorption, etiology, radiography, Crowns, Dental Implantation, Endosseous, adverse effects, statistics & numerical data, Dental Implants, adverse effects, statistics & numerical data, Dental Prosthesis Design, Dental Prosthesis Retention, Dental Prosthesis, Implant-Supported, Dental Restoration Failure, Denture, Partial, Evaluation Studies as Topic, Female, Follow-Up Studies, Humans, Life Tables, Male, Mandible, radiography, surgery, Maxilla, radiography, surgery, Middle Aged, Osseointegration, Periodontal Diseases, etiology, Retrospective Studies, Treatment Outcome
Subject categories Oral prosthetics


A proposed protocol and differentiated success criteria for long-term evaluation of oral implants are presented. The protocol and criteria were applied to a retrospective patient material treated during a 1-year period and followed for 5 years. The protocol comprised a two-stage analysis of the collected clinical data. First, a quantitative analysis of the outcome was made using a life table. Based on the information obtained during the follow-up, each implant was categorized into one of three groups: unaccounted for, failure, or survival. A qualitative analysis of the survival group was then performed by active testing against defined criteria. Depending on the modes of clinical and radiographic examinations and their results, surviving implants were either further assigned to one of three success grades or remained in the survival group. The data are presented in a four-field table at one level of success. Strict success criteria together with individual stability testing and radiographic examination of each consecutive implant should be used when a new implant system is evaluated or when a new application is explored. Radiography alone and more moderate success criteria may be used to document routine treatments, provided that an already well-documented implant system is studied.

Page Manager: Webmaster|Last update: 9/11/2012

The University of Gothenburg uses cookies to provide you with the best possible user experience. By continuing on this website, you approve of our use of cookies.  What are cookies?