Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Implant Success, Survival, and Failure: The International Congress of Oral Implantologists (ICOI) Pisa Consensus Conference
Implant Success, Survival, and Failure: The International Congress of Oral Implantologists (ICOI) Pisa Consensus Conference
plant, often accompanied with bleed- SUMMARY Health Scale specific for endosteal im-
ing on probing. Exudate episodes (if plants and included categories of suc-
Implant success is as difficult to
present) may have lasted more than 2 cess, survival, and failure. In addition,
describe as the success criteria re-
weeks. The prognosis is good to these categories of health may be re-
quired for a tooth. A range from health
guarded, depending on the ability to lated to the prognosis of the existing
to disease exists in both conditions. conditions.
reduce and control stress once the sur- The primary criteria for assessing im-
gical corrections have improved the plant, quality, or health are pain and
soft and hard tissue health. mobility. The presence of either one REFERENCES
The Group IV of the Pisa Implant greatly compromises the implant and 1. Schnitman PA, Shulman LB. Rec-
Health Scale is clinical or absolute removal usually is indicated. Routine ommendations of the consensus develop-
failure. The implant should be re- probing depths are not suggested in ment conference on dental implants. J Am
moved under any of these conditions: the absence of other sings or symp- Dent Assoc. 1979;98:373-377.
(1) pain on palpation, percussion or 2. Cranin AN, Silverbrand H, Sher J, et
toms and may be related to the pres- al. The requirements and clinical perfor-
function, (2) horizontal and/or vertical ence of local disease or preexisting mance of dental implants. In: Smith DC,
mobility, (3) uncontrolled progressive tissue thickness before the implant Williams DF, eds. Biocompatibility of Den-
bone loss, (4) uncontrolled exudate, or was inserted. Bone loss is most often tal Materials. Vol. 4. Boca Raton, FL: CRC
(5) more than 50% bone loss around evaluated with radiographs, which Press; 1982:92-102.
the implant. Implants surgically only monitor the mesial and distal 3. McKinney RV, Koth DC, Steflik DE.
placed but unable to be restored Clinical standards for dental implants. In:
marginal bone next to the implant. Clark JW, ed. Clinical Dentistry. Harpers-
(sleepers) are also included in Group Implant failure is easier to de- town, PA: Harper & Row; 1984:27-41.
IV failure. Regardless of whether the scribe than implant success or survival 4. Albrektsson T, Zarb GA, Worthing-
implant is still in the mouth or re- and may consist of a variety of factors. ton P, et al. The long-term efficacy of cur-
moved, the implant is recorded in this Any pain, vertical mobility, and un- rently used dental implants: A review and
category as a failure in all statistical proposed criteria of success. Int J Oral
controlled progressive bone loss war-
Maxillofac Implants. 1986;1:1-25.
data. Implants that have exfoliated or rant implant removal. 5. Albrektsson T, Zarb GA. Determi-
have been surgically removed are also The ICOI Pisa Consensus Confer- nants of correct clinical reporting. Int
in this failure category. ence has simplified and updated a J Prosthodont. 1998;11:517-521.
PORTUGUESE / PORTUGUÊS
TURKISH / TÜRKÇE