Resident & Faculty Placed Dental Implants Show Similar Survival, Complication Rates

Objectives: The success rate of dental implants is reported in literature between 92-95%. However, the success rates of dental implants placed by residents compared to the clinical faculty in dental specialties at teaching institutions has not been shown. Thus, we hypothesize that the clinical faculty at the Texas A&M College of Dentistry, Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery will have a higher success rate and a lower complication rate than the surgical residents.
Methods: Following approval from the TAMU IRB, patients who received dental implants from January 2011 to April 2011 by faculty or residents were identified, and all pertinent health and implant data, restoration type, and longest follow-up were recorded. In total, 277 dental implants from 145 consecutive patients were placed between January 2011 to April 2011. A successful implant was defined as a restored implant with no failure through the longest follow-up. Complications were defined as any iatrogenic cause of morbidity due to the implant surgery, such as V3 paresthesia. Exclusion criteria was defined as any implant which was not followed through restoration, though both restored and non-restored failed implants were included. Thus, 221 implants from 124 patients were included in the study.
Results: Of the 221 implants included, 136 were placed by residents with a 94.9% success rate (129/136) and a 11.8% complication rate (16/136). 85 implants were placed by faculty with an 89.4% success rate (76/85) and a 14.1% complication rate (12/85). A Chi-square analysis showed no statistical difference of the success (p = 0.13) or complication rates (p = 0.61) between faculty and residents. Kaplan-Meier survival analyses also showed no significant differences between faculty and residents in the survival of dental implants (p > 0.05).
Conclusions: Both faculty and residents at teaching institutions have a similar rate of success and complications associated with dental implant placement. However, due to the limited number of failures and complications, continuation of this study is needed to further elucidate any statistically significant differences.