Scholarlink

Introduction <p>Immediate implant placement has become integral to modern dentistry, yet existing indices fail to comprehensively assess its success. The Immediate Implant Placement Success Index (IIPSI) was developed to address this gap by evaluating critical biological, biomechanical, and esthetic parameters.</p> Materials and Methods <p>IIPSI integrates 11 evidence-based parameters (e.g., bone quality, implant stability, prosthetic planning) scored from 1 (least favorable) to 4 (most favorable), totaling 40 points. Validation involved: pilot studies (50–100 patients) to refine criteria, full-scale analysis (150–200 patients) with 1–2-year follow-up, and statistical evaluation (Spearman’s correlation, ANOVA, multivariate regression) correlating scores with 12-month outcomes (bone loss, ISQ, PES).</p> Results <p>IIPSI scores stratified success probability: high (32–40): 96% success rate (bone loss 1.0 mm, ISQ ≥70, PES ≥11), moderate (24–31): 82% success (manageable bone loss), low (16–23): high risk; required modified protocols, and poor (16): contraindicated for immediate placement. Significant correlations included total score vs. bone loss (ρ = −0.71, *p* 0.001) and ISQ (*p* 0.001).</p> Conclusion <p>IIPSI provides a standardized, predictive framework for immediate implant success, enhancing clinical decision-making. Future directions include AI integration and global multicenter validation.</p>

错误：搜索内容不能为空，请输入英文关键词
错误：关键词超出字数限制，请精简
高级检索

Development and Validation of the Immediate Implant Placement Success Index (IIPSI)©: A Comprehensive Tool for Predicting Implant Success

  • 期刊论文

  • 发表日期：

    2025年8月11日

查看全文
  • Venkatesh Hange,
  • Sheeraz Badal,
  • Hasti Kankariya,
  • Shrey Srivastava,
  • Apurva Deshpande,
  • Shubham Gautam Bhele

摘要

Introduction

Immediate implant placement has become integral to modern dentistry, yet existing indices fail to comprehensively assess its success. The Immediate Implant Placement Success Index (IIPSI) was developed to address this gap by evaluating critical biological, biomechanical, and esthetic parameters.

Materials and Methods

IIPSI integrates 11 evidence-based parameters (e.g., bone quality, implant stability, prosthetic planning) scored from 1 (least favorable) to 4 (most favorable), totaling 40 points. Validation involved: pilot studies (50–100 patients) to refine criteria, full-scale analysis (150–200 patients) with 1–2-year follow-up, and statistical evaluation (Spearman’s correlation, ANOVA, multivariate regression) correlating scores with 12-month outcomes (bone loss, ISQ, PES).

Results

IIPSI scores stratified success probability: high (32–40): 96% success rate (bone loss 1.0 mm, ISQ ≥70, PES ≥11), moderate (24–31): 82% success (manageable bone loss), low (16–23): high risk; required modified protocols, and poor (16): contraindicated for immediate placement. Significant correlations included total score vs. bone loss (ρ = −0.71, *p* 0.001) and ISQ (*p* 0.001).

Conclusion

IIPSI provides a standardized, predictive framework for immediate implant success, enhancing clinical decision-making. Future directions include AI integration and global multicenter validation.