A systematic review and meta-analysis of the survival rate of implants placed in previously failed sites

Abstract

The aim of this study was to conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis to assess the clinical outcomes of dental implants placed in previously early and late implant failed sites. An electronic literature search was conducted in several databases for articles published up to February 2018. Human clinical trials that received at least one implant in a previously failed site were included. Hence, the PICO question that was aimed to be addressed was: Do patients undergoing implant replacement (second and third attempts) in previous failed sites have survival rates similar to implants placed at first attempts? A random effects model was used to calculate survival weighted means and corresponding 95% Confidence Intervals (CI) among studies. Eleven studies of low to moderate methodological quality were included in this review. Implants placed in sites with history of one and two implant failures had a weighted survival rate (SR) of 88.7% (95%CI 81.7-93.3) and 67.1% (95%CI 51.1-79.9), respectively. Implants placed in sites with a previous early failure revealed a weighted SR of 91.8% (95%CI 85.1-95.6). First implants presented higher SR than implants placed in sites with one or two previous implant failures. In contrast, implants placed in sites with one and two implant failures had similar SR. Within its limitations, this review suggests that replacement implants have moderate SR. Larger prospective studies with well-defined criteria for early and late implant failure are necessary to confirm and expand on these results.

Early implant failure: a retrospective analysis of contributing factors

“…A cluster behavior, defined as more than 1 implant failure per patient (not necessarily in the same area or quadrant [25]) was observed in 6 patients (23%), accounting for 43% of early implant failures. The relevance of repetitive failures at the same site is supported by a recent meta-analysis finding that the weighted survival rate of implants placed at sites of previous failures was 86.7%, with this rate decreasing to 67.1% at sites where the previous implants had failed twice [26]. Therefore, maintaining the survival rate requires the cause of failure to be identified and fully considered in the second attempt of implant placement at sites of previous failures, in order to prevent yet another failure.…”

Chronic Submerged Implant Infection Treated with Immediate Implantation and Guided Bone Regeneration: A Case Report

“…The survival rate of implants placed at the site of a previous implant failure varies depending on the time and number of failures. A review performed by Gomes et al [3], reported a low survival rate of implants placed at the site of late implant failure and for implants placed after a second and third implant failure. However, the survival rate of implants placed at the site of early implant failure or a first implant failure was more than 90% [3].…”

“…The decision to keep or replace the comp-romised implant depends on many factors, such as the amount of hard and soft tissue available, implant stability, cost, time and the medical condition of the patient. Several studies have found that the success rate of the second implant is lower than that of the first implant placed in pristine bone [3]. However, the treatment of implant failure without removal may not lead to a complete cure, and the infection may persist [4].…”

Risk factors and reoperative survival rate of failed narrow‐diameter implants in the maxillary anterior region

“…Manifold treatment strategies, such as removable or fixed partial dentures and reimplants, are available for patients with initially failed implants. Reimplants are regarded as a prime alternative for the vast proportion of implants that have previously failed at the same sites . Moreover, the existing data indicate that reimplants have moderate success rates.…”

“…Reimplants are regarded as a prime alternative for the vast proportion of implants that have previously failed at the same sites. 14,15 Moreover, the existing data indicate that reimplants have moderate success rates. In the anterior zone, the labial cortical bone thickness is the thinnest compared to other regions in the maxilla, 8 which affects the early stability and success rate of implants.…”