PURPOSE: Rehabilitation of the incomplete dentition by means of osseointegrated dental implants represents a highly predictable and widespread therapy; however, little is known about potential risk factors that may impair long-term implant success. METHODS: From 2004 to 2012, a total of 13,147 implants were placed in 4,316 patients at the Academy for Oral Implantology in Vienna. The survival rates after 8 years of follow-up were computed using the Kaplan-Meier method, and the impact of patient- and implant-related risk factors was assessed. RESULTS: Overall implant survival was 97% and was not associated with implant length (P=0.930), implant diameter (P=0.704), jaw location (P=0.545), implant position (P=0.450), local bone quality (P=0.398), previous bone augmentation surgery (P=0.617), or patient-related factors including osteoporosis (P=0.661), age (P=0.575), or diabetes mellitus (P=0.928). However, smoking increased the risk of implant failure by 3 folds (P<0.001) and a positive history of periodontal disease doubled the failure risk (P=0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Summing up the long-term results of well over 10,000 implants at the Academy for Oral Implantology in Vienna it can be concluded that there is only a limited number of patients that do not qualify for implant therapy and may thus not benefit from improved quality of life associated with fixed implant-retained prostheses.
Dental Implantation, Endosseous ; Dental Implants ; Dental Prosthesis, Implant-Supported ; Dentition ; Diabetes Mellitus ; Follow-Up Studies* ; Humans ; Jaw ; Osteoporosis ; Periodontal Diseases ; Prostheses and Implants ; Quality of Life ; Rehabilitation ; Risk Factors* ; Smoke ; Smoking ; Survival Analysis ; Survival Rate

Objective: The present study investigated, whether computer-aided therapy in patients with Parkinson’s disease is equivalent/non-inferior to conventional Lee Silvermann Voice Treatment (LSVT)-BIGtherapy in respect to motor outcome as measured by the Unified Parkinson’s Disease Rating Scale (MDS-UPDRS-III) and quality of life as measured by the Parkinson’s Disease Questionnaire (PDQ-39). Methods: In this controlled, rater-blinded study, 34 patients were included and 24 patients randomized to train seven standard exercises of the BIG-therapy either by a computer (BeBIG-group) or by a certified LSVT-BIG therapist (ThBIG-group) over four weeks. Equivalence was assessed by comparing the confidence interval of the BeBIG-group to the equivalence margin of the ThBIG-group. Results: There were no significant group differences in respect to age, disease duration, L-dopa equivalent daily dose or clinical stage of the disease. Both groups profited significantly from the therapy as demonstrated by an improvement in the MDS-UPDRS-III of 9.17 point in the BeBIG-group and of 8.92 points in the ThBIG-group. There was a non-significant decrease in the PDQ-39 of 9.23 points in the BeBIG-group and 4.23 points in the ThBIG-group. However, equivalence could not be demonstrated as the improvement of the BeBIG-group exceeded the confidence interval of the ThBIG-group. Conclusion: Physical training by a computer as well as by a therapist improves motor symptoms and quality of life in Parkinson’s disease. Both therapies are not equivalent, superiority of the computerized training can however not be concluded, as the study was only designed to test for non-inferiority. Therefore, computerized training can be considered as an add-on-therapy