Masri Daya, Masri-Iraqi Hiba, Naishlos Sarit, Weinberg Evgeny, Reiser Vadim, Chaushu Liat
Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, Rabin Medical Center, Petach-Tikva 4941492, Israel.
Department of Endocrinology, Rabin Medical Center, Petach-Tikva 4941492, Israel.
J Clin Med. 2022 Apr 2;11(7):2002. doi: 10.3390/jcm11072002.
Within medicine, it is common to use risk prediction tools towards clinical decision making. One of the most widely accepted assessment tools is the American Society of Anesthesiologists Physical Status (ASA PS) classification. Oral and maxillofacial procedures performed in an ambulatory setting would be considered low risk for the procedure itself. However, little is known concerning the impact of ASA PS on surgical outcomes. The aim of the present research was to evaluate the effect of ASA PS classification on early implant failure (EIF).
Retrospective cohort study based on dental records. All treatments were performed by experienced oral and maxillofacial surgeons and experienced prosthodontists.
ASA physical status 1,2,3, consecutive individuals. Variables included the following: age, gender, implant location, implant length, implant width, smoking, and early implant failure.
Univariate tests at the patient level showed no statistically difference between the different classifications of ASA PS (1,2,3). Multivariate model using logistic regression at individual level showed that two factors were found to be associated with an increased risk for EIF-augmented bone and implant brand.
ASA PS 3 is not a contraindication for implant-supported prostheses. EIF in ASA PS 3 is not significantly different from ASA PS 1,2. In contrast, factors such as bone augmentation and implant brand might be significant risk factors for EIF, regardless of ASA PS.
在医学领域，使用风险预测工具辅助临床决策很常见。最广泛接受的评估工具之一是美国麻醉医师协会身体状况（ASA PS）分类。在门诊环境中进行的口腔颌面手术本身被认为风险较低。然而，关于ASA PS对手术结果的影响知之甚少。本研究的目的是评估ASA PS分类对早期种植体失败（EIF）的影响。
基于牙科记录的回顾性队列研究。所有治疗均由经验丰富的口腔颌面外科医生和修复牙医进行。
ASA身体状况为1、2、3的连续个体。变量包括以下内容：年龄、性别、种植体位置、种植体长度、种植体宽度、吸烟情况和早期种植体失败。
患者层面的单因素检验显示，ASA PS的不同分类（1、2、3）之间无统计学差异。个体层面使用逻辑回归的多变量模型显示，发现两个因素与EIF风险增加相关——植骨和种植体品牌。
ASA PS 3并非种植支持式假体的禁忌证。ASA PS 3中的EIF与ASA PS 1、2相比无显著差异。相比之下，无论ASA PS如何，植骨和种植体品牌等因素可能是EIF的重要风险因素。
