27 / 36
CAMLOG&Science – Chapter 5
26 | 27
EXCELLENT SUCCESS RATES WITH THE SAND-BLASTED AND ACID-
ETCHED PROMOTE
®
SURFACE
Healing time depends – among other factors – on the surgical interventions
performed during implantation, bone quality as well as on the implant surface.
In a retrospective study, Nelson and co-workers investigated the long-term
efficacy of two different sand-blasted and acid-etched implant systems
(CAMLOG
®
and Straumann implants) loadedwith the same reduced healing
time. The results were published in three articles (Nelson et al. 2008 and
Semper et al. 2007 and 2008). Nelson reported the results of the entire
study cohort including 532 implants placed in the maxilla (448) and in the
mandible (84) following the standardized healing time of the department,
i.e. six weeks post implantation for mandible and 12 weeks for maxilla. The
evaluation of the implant success was based on criteria defined by Buser et
al. (2002): absence of mobility, no apical translucency, no pain or other
signs of persistent or irreversible symptoms, no periimplant inflammation.
Success (99.4% at five years) did not show any statistical difference between
the two implant systems. Semper using the same approach, reported the
results of the implants inserted in themaxilla. No statistical difference between
the two systems was noticed.
Özkan et al. (2007 and 2011) examined the treatment outcome of several
implant brands after three and five years, respectively. The three-year eva-
luation encompassedCAMLOG
®
(53), ITI (105), and Frialit (45) implants. Recalls
were performed at six, 12, 24 and 36months and included clinical parameters
as well as radiographs. The authors concluded that the three implant systems
presented similar positive outcomes at three-year follow-up. Comparable
results were described in the publication of the five-year follow-up including
CAMLOG
®
(90), Straumann (86), Swiss Plus (35), and Frialit (33) implants
in several indications. The authors observed no significant differences between
the implant systems and concluded that the used systems led to positive
treatment success at three and five years.
High success rates in everyday practice were also confirmed by Franchini et
al. (2011). The authors reported the results of a retrospective study with an
observational period varying from one year after loading up to six and a half
years. In total, data from 96 patients with 201 CAMLOG
®
implants in different
indications were analyzed: 158 implants were placed in partially edentulous
patients, 49 in single tooth gaps. The success rate was 99.5%. Treatment
success was independent of the times of implantation or loading, as well as
of implant lengths.
TREATMENTSUCCESSBASEDON IMPLANTDIAMETERANDLENGTH
Krennmair et al. (2010) compared the treatment success of 541 CAMLOG
®
implants with different implant diameters. The implants were placed imme-
diately (n=6), six to eight weeks (n=116) or more than eight weeks after
tooth extraction (n=409). The authors reported cumulative success rates
after five years of 96.2% for 3.8 mm implants, 98.6% for 4.3 mm implants
and 99.0% for 5.0 and 6.0 mm implants. Prosthetic follow-ups were required
in just a few cases. The average degree of patient satisfaction with the treat-
ments reached 4.8 on a scale from one to five (five being the highest degree
of satisfaction). Similar results were observed by Strietzel & Reichart (2007),
who compared the treatment successes of short and long CAMLOG
®
implants.
The authors did not observe any significant differences between lengths.
The average survival rate of all 325 implants was 98.5% over an observation
period of up to four and a half years.
TREATMENT SUCCESS BASED ON TIME OF IMPLANTATION AND
HEALING PERIOD
Various studies reported the implant survival rate depending on the time of
implantation after tooth extraction. In a retrospective study over five years
with 241 implants (118 CAMLOG
®
implants), Zafiropoulos et al. (2010) ob-
served no differences in the implant survival rate depending on the time of
implantation, implant type or time to loading (Table 7). These results were
confirmed by De Lange et al. (2010), who studied the treatment success of
774 implants in fresh or healed extraction sites, with immediate or delayed
loading. The authors concluded that individual risk factors such as smoking,
inflammation or endodontic treatments were much more critical to success
than the time points of implantation and loading. Siebers et al. (2011) also
studied the effect of implantation and healing time in 76 patients with a
total of 222 implants over a period of up to seven years. They achieved a
treatment success of 100% for implants placed in healed extraction sites.
Treatment success was 91.3% for implants placed and loaded immediately
and 98.5% for immediately placed implants with delayed loading.