A Novel, Minimally Invasive Method to Retrieve Failed Dental Implants in Elderly Patients

Abstract

This practice-based study presents the clinical outcomes of a minimally invasive method for retrieving failed dental implants from elderly patients. Traditional removal methods for failed dental implants include trephination and other invasive procedures. That can be a special concern for the elderly, since aging exacerbates oral surgery-related morbidity and anxiety. This retrospective cohort study gathers data from 150 patients seen in a private clinic. Their implants (n = 199) failed due to biological, mechanical, or iatrogenic causes, and were removed as part of their treatment plan. Collected data included: (1) implant location (maxilla/mandible, anterior/posterior region), (2) reasons for implant retrieval, (3) connection type, (4) removal torque, and (5) operatory procedure—flapless and using a counter-torque removal kit, whenever possible. Flapless/minimally invasive retrieval was successful for 193 implants (97%). The remaining six implants demanded trephination (open-flap). The most common reasons for implant retrieval (81%) involved biological aspects, whereas iatrogenic (12%) and biomechanical (7%) reasons were less common. The surgical technique used was not associated to connection types or removal torque. Authors conclude that a counter-torque ratchet system is a minimally invasive technique with a high success rate in retrieving implants from elderly patients. Present findings support its use as a first-line approach for implant retrieval in that population.

Comparison of Four Different Dental Implant Removal Techniques in Terms of the Weight and Volume of Bone Loss

“…The critical nature of the implant removal method lies in its potential impact on future implant placement and prosthetic rehabilitation. Damage to hard and soft tissues, bone overheating, and the presence of contaminated implant or instrument material particles can adversely affect healing time, the number of surgeries, and restoration fabrication time, influencing the patient's financial and overall well-being [ 16 ]. Therefore, the choice of implant removal techniques should align with clinical considerations such as implant site, alveolar bone quantity and quality, and site-specific anatomical characteristics.…”