Retrospective clinical review of dental implants placed in a university training program.

David Kohavi*, Gilad Azran, Lior Shapira, Nardy Casap

*Corresponding author for this work

Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review


Many dental schools offer implant clinical training at the pre- and postdoctoral levels, but little has been published on the clinical outcomes of implants placed in those programs. A post-entry chart review was conducted of all Branemark and Taper-Lock implants placed in a university clinic by faculty-student teams. Case information was gathered on data reporting forms and entered into a computer spreadsheet program. Survival rates were calculated as percentages. Cumulative implant survival was 96% for all 303 implants placed. Eight of the 12 implants that failed were placed by 2 operators, only 1 of whom was in the early stages of implant training. Branemark implant survival was 94.9% (n = 198) at 36 months; failures occurred between stage 2 and 3 months (n = 8) in mandibles and after 12 months (n = 2) in maxillae. Taper-Lock implant survival was 98.1% (n = 105) at 24 months; no mandibular failures occurred, but maxillary failures occurred before stage 2 (n = 1) and after 12 months of loading (n = 1). Taper-Lock implants exhibited a slightly higher (3.2%) cumulative survival rate at 24 months compared to Branemark implants. Differences in the numbers of implants placed (105 vs 198) and follow-up times (24 months vs 36 months) may have skewed the comparative results of Taper-Lock and Branemark implants, respectively, in this study. Implant survival for both systems was similar at 24 months of follow-up, and clinician experience did not appear to be an influencing variable on implant survival.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)23-29
Number of pages7
JournalJournal of Oral Implantology
Issue number1
StatePublished - 2004
Externally publishedYes


Dive into the research topics of 'Retrospective clinical review of dental implants placed in a university training program.'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this