This study is designed as a retrospective, multi-center study. The study population consist of subjects who received one or more OsseoSpeed EV implants during the period January 1st 2015 to December 31st 2016. Two hundred subjects will be enrolled, approximately 25-30 subjects per site. The study includes retrospective data collection from subjects' medical records and data collection from one prospective study visit with a clinical examination.
Study Type
OBSERVATIONAL
Enrollment
208
The investigational product (OsseoSpeed EV implant) is already included in a restoration in the subject at enrollment, thus this study does not involve the installation of any investigational products.
University of Illinois College of Dentistry
Chicago, Illinois, United States
Centrum voor tandheelkunde Geluwe
Geluwe, Belgium
Burlington Prosthodontics
Burlington, Canada
Oral Hammaslääkärit
Helsinki, Finland
Percent of Survived Implants at Time of the Follow-up Visit
Survival defined as implant in situ at time of the follow-up visit. Primary analysis performed on implant level.
Time frame: Up to 66 months post-procedure.
Percent of Successful Implants at Time of the Follow-up Visit
Implant success defined as implant in situ at time of the follow-up visit and no Adverse Device Effects (ADEs) related to the implant or adjacent peri-implant tissues reported from the day when the study product(s) was installed until the end of the study. Analysis performed on implant level.
Time frame: Up to 66 months post-procedure.
Percent of Successful Prosthetics at Time of the Follow-up Visit
Prosthetic success defined as implant, abutment and restoration in situ at time of the follow-up visit and no Adverse Device Effects (ADEs) related to the reconstruction or adjacent peri-implant tissues reported from the day when the study position(s) was permanently included in a prosthetic restoration until the end of the study. Analysis performed on implant level.
Time frame: Up to 66 months post-procedure.
Marginal Bone Levels (MBL)
Bone tissue response was evaluated for each investigational position by measuring Marginal Bone Levels (MBL) on the radiographs. Intraoral radiographs were used. Analysis performed on implant level.
Time frame: Up to 66 months post-procedure.
Soft Tissue Response Measured Through Probing Pocket Depth (PPD) at Time of Follow-up Visit
Soft tissue response evaluated by measuring the PPD of each study position. PPD was evaluated using a periodontal probe. PPD was measured as the distance from the mucosal margin to the bottom of the probable pocket in whole millimeters. PPD mean values, and frequencies per depth, were calculated for each study position. Analysis performed on implant level.
This platform is for informational purposes only and does not constitute medical advice. Always consult a qualified healthcare professional.
Implantarium Gernsbach
Gernsbach, Germany
Universitätsklinik Heidelberg, Klinik und Poliklinik für Mund-, Kiefer- und Gesichtschirurgie
Heidelberg, Germany
Hallands sjukhus Halmstad, Department of Oral & Maxillofacial surgery
Halmstad, Sweden
Time frame: Up to 66 months post-procedure.
Soft Tissue Response Measured Through Bleeding on Probing (BoP) at Time of Follow-up Visit
Presence of BoP was evaluated using a periodontal probe. The proportion of surfaces that showed presence of bleeding were calculated and presented for each study implant position. Analysis performed on implant level.
Time frame: Up to 66 months post-procedure.
Soft Tissue Response Measured Through Presence of Plaque at Time of Follow-up Visit
Plaque was recorded as presence or absence of plaque by visual inspection. The proportion of surfaces that showed presence of plaque were calculated and presented for each study implant position. Analysis performed on implant level.
Time frame: Up to 66 months post-procedure.
Patient Reported Outcome on Implant Level at Time of Follow-up Visit
Subject satisfaction was evaluated using a short subject questionnaire of each investigational implant position. Subjects were asked to complete a questionnaire to state their opinion about: 1) chewing function and 2) esthetics and 3) overall level of treatment satisfaction. For question 1) the scale ranged from Very bad (1), Bad (2), Neither bad or good (3), Good (4), and Very good (5). For questions 2) and 3) the scale ranged from Very dissatisfied (1), Dissatisfied (2), Neither dissatisfied nor satisfied (3), Satisfied (4), and Very satisfied (5). Authorized investigational site personnel provided the questionnaire during the investigational visit. The subject was instructed to complete it, one per investigational position, and return it for data entry by site personnel into the electronic-Case Report Form (eCRF). The frequencies of each score were calculated for each question and investigational position. Analysis performed on implant level.
Time frame: Up to 66 months post-procedure.