Computer-guided implant removal: A clinical report

Deeb, George R.; Koerich, Leonard; Whitley, Daniel; Bencharit, Sompop

doi:10.1016/j.prosdent.2017.10.032

Cited by 12 publications

(18 citation statements)

References 5 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…The device consists of a handpiece containing a grip head (6) (Figure 2), heating or cooling module (7), vibration module (8), hammering module (9), handle (10), a secondary clamping system composed of a clamping lever (11), and clamping jaws (12). The grip head can exert radial clamping forces via an adapter piece (connecting device) on the implant (1) (Figure 3) in the bone (4).…”

Section: P2 (Braegger Et Al Switzerland)mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The device consists of a handpiece containing a grip head (6), handle (10), and a secondary clamping system composed of a clamping lever (11) and clamping jaws (12). They can exert clamping forces to the implant (1) in the bone (4).…”

Section: Figurementioning

confidence: 99%

“…Higher-frequency vibrations ranging from 5 to 30 kHz can be generated using piezo crystal vibration elements [32]. 6), handle (10), and a secondary clamping system composed of a clamping lever (11) and clamping jaws (12). They can exert clamping forces to the implant (1) in the bone (4).…”

Section: Figurementioning

confidence: 99%

“…The utility of this method can be further enhanced by using it with a dental implant design having a channel (12) along the longitudinal axis of the implant to improve uniform heating and/or cooling. E and F as shown above are exemplary connecting devices for the modified implants [53].…”

Section: Figure 7 Implants (mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Peri-implantitis can be treated to an extent to preserve the implant [8][9][10]. However, there is consensus that implants with severe, progressing peri-implantitis should be removed [1,2,7,[11][12][13][14][15][16][17]. It has been established that periodontitis negatively impacts systemic health [18][19][20][21].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 4 more Smart Citations

Reversal of Osseointegration as a Novel Perspective for the Removal of Failed Dental Implants: A Review of Five Patented Methods

et al. 2021

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Osseointegration is the basis of successful dental implantology and the foundation of cementless arthroplasty and the osseointegrated percutaneous prosthetic system. Osseointegration has been considered irreversible thus far. However, controlled heating or cooling of dental implants could selectively damage the bone at the bone–implant interface, causing the reversal of osseointegration or “osseodisintegration”. This review compares five methods for implant removal, published as patent documents between 2010 and 2018, which have not yet been discussed in the scientific literature. We describe these methods and evaluate their potential for reversing osseointegration. The five methods have several technical and methodological similarities: all methods include a handpiece, a connecting device for coronal access, and a controlling device, as well as the application of mechanical and/or thermal energy. The proposed method of quantifying the temperature with a sensor as the sole means for regulating the process seems inadequate. A database used in one of the methods, however, allows a more precise correlation between a selected implant and the energy needed for its removal, thus avoiding unnecessary trauma to the patient. A flapless, microinvasive, and bone-conserving approach for removing failed dental implants, facilitating successful reimplantation, would benefit dental implantology. These methods could be adapted to cementless medical implants and osseointegrated percutaneous prosthetics. However, for some of the methods discussed herein, further research may be necessary.

show abstract

Section: P2 (Braegger Et Al Switzerland)mentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Figurementioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Figurementioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Figure 7 Implants (mentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Reversal of Osseointegration as a Novel Perspective for the Removal of Failed Dental Implants: A Review of Five Patented Methods

et al. 2021

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Removal of failed dental implants revisited: Questions and answers

Solderer

Al‐Jazrawi²,

Sahrmann

et al. 2019

Clinical & Exp Dental Res

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

ObjectivesThis narrative review is aiming on showing reasons for implant failure, removal techniques, and respective clinical considerations; further, the survival rate of implants in previous failed sites is examined.Materials and methodsQuestions have been formulated, answered, and discussed through a literature search including studies assessing implant failure and removal up to 2018.ResultsStudies describing reasons for implant failure, implant removal techniques, and the reinsertion of implants in a previous failed site (n = 12) were included. To date, peri‐implantitis is the main reason for late implant failure (81.9%). Trephine burs seem to be the best‐known method for implant removal. Nevertheless, the counter‐torque‐ratchet‐technique, because of the low invasiveness, should be the first choice for the clinician. Regarding zirconia implant removal, only scarce data are available. Implantation in previously failed sites irrespective of an early or late failure results in 71% to 100% survival over 5 years.ConclusionIf removal is required, interventions should be based on considerations regarding minimally invasive access and management as well as predictable healing. (Post)Operative considerations should primarily depend on the defect type and the consecutive implantation plans.

show abstract