# On the Association between Dental Implants, Osteoporosis and Bone Modulating Therapy
## 3 Results
### Study Population
#### 3.1.2 Multivariate Analysis  
A Logistic regression model at the implant level showed that the independent variables significantly predict failure (\(\chi^{2}(16)=99.69\), \(p<0.001\)), while explaining about 12% of total variance in failure. The model is well-fit to the data (\(\chi^{2}(8)=4.38\), \(p=0.82\)) while classifying about 96.1% of the total observations. It was found that the odds of failure for implants installed in an augmented bone was 2.14 times higher vs. implants in pristine bone (OR = 2.14, \(p=0.002\)). All other tested parameters had no statistically significant differences. Descriptive Tables about osteoporosis treatment (as shown in Tables 5 and 6). \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{l l l l} \hline \hline  & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**N**} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{**\%**} \\ \hline \multicolumn{4}{l}{Demographic characteristics} \\ \hline \multicolumn{4}{l}{Gender} \\ \hline \(\bigcirc\) & Male & 294 & 37.2 \\ \hline \(\bigcirc\) & Female & 498 & 62.8 \\ \hline \multicolumn{4}{l}{Age Group (years)} \\ \hline \(\bigcirc\) & \(\leq\)65 & 459 & 58 \\ \hline \(\bigcirc\) & 66–79.9 & 265 & 33.4 \\ \hline \(\bigcirc\) & \(\geq\)80 & 68 & 8.6 \\ \hline \multicolumn{4}{l}{Smoking} \\ \hline \multicolumn{4}{l}{Clinical Characteristics} \\ \hline \multicolumn{4}{l}{Augmentation} \\ \hline \(\bigcirc\) & Pristine & 323 & 40.8 \\ \hline \(\bigcirc\) & Augmented & 469 & 59.2 \\ \hline EIF & 114 & 14.4 \\ \hline Osteoporosis & 72 & 9.1 \\ \hline No osteoporosis & 720 & 90.9 \\ \hline Osteoporosis with BMT & 46 & 5.8 \\ \hline Osteoporosis without BMT & 26 & 3.3 \\ \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 2: Demographics and baseline clinical characteristics of the cohort at patient level (n = 792). \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{l c c c c} \hline \hline  & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**Success**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**Failure**} \\ \hline
**Variable** & **Group** & \(\mathbf{N}\) **(\%)** & \(\mathbf{M}\)\(\pm\)\(\mathbf{SD}\) & \(\mathbf{N}\) **(\%)** & \(\mathbf{M}\)\(\pm\)\(\mathbf{SD}\) & \(\mathbf{p}\)**-Value** \\ \hline Age groups (Years) & \(\leq\)65 & 1647 (57.6\%) & 68 (59.6\%) & 0.16 \\ \hline  & 66–79.9 & 967 (33.8\%) & 42 (36.8\%) & \\ \hline  & \(\geq\)80 & 243 (8.5\%) & 4 (3.5\%) & \\ \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 3: Univariate analysis at implant level. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c} \hline \hline  & & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**Success**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**EIF**} \\ \hline
**Variable** & **Group** & \(N\) **(\%)** & \(M\)\(\pm\)\(SD\)** & \(N\) **(\%)** & \(M\)\(\pm\)\(SD\)** & \(p\)**-Value** \\ \hline Gender & Male & 256 (37.8\%) & 38 (33.3\%) & & 0.36 \\ \hline  & Female & 422 (62.2\%) & 76 (66.7\%) & & \\ \hline Age groups & \(\leq\)65 & 391 (57.7\%) & 68 (59.6\%) & & 0.10 \\ \hline  & 66–79.9 & 223 (32.9\%) & 42 (36.8\%) & & \\ \hline  & \(\geq\)80 & 64 (9.4\%) & 4 (3.5\%) & & \\ \hline Smoking & No & 643 (94.8\%) & 109 (95.6\%) & 0.73 \\ \hline  & Yes & 35 (5.2\%) & 5 (4.4\%) & & \\ \hline DM & No & 574 (84.6\%) & 597 (88\%) & 0.371 \\ \hline  & Yes & 104 (15.4\%) & 81 (12\%) & & \\ \hline Augmentation & Pristine & 298 (44\%) & 25 (21.9\%) & \(<\)0.001 \\ \hline  & Augmented & 380 (56\%) & 89 (78.1\%) & & \\ \hline Osteoporosis & No & 615 (90.7\%) & 105 (92.1\%) & 0.26 \\ \hline Osteoporosis with BMT & 38 (5.6\%) & 8 (7.0\%) & & \\ \hline Osteoporosis without BMT & 25 (3.7\%) & 1 (0.9\%) & & \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 4: Univariate tests at the patient level.