Factors Influencing Early Dental Implant Failures

Abstract

Abstract:The purpose of the present study was to assess the influence of local and systemic factors on the occurrence of dental implant failures up to the 2nd stage surgery (abutment connection). This retrospective study is based on 2,670 patients who received 10,096 implants and were consecutively treated with implant-supported prostheses between 1980 and 2014 at one specialist clinic. Several anatomical-, patient-, health-, and implant-related factors were collected. Descriptive statistics were used to describe the patients and implants. Univariate and multivariate logistic regression models were used at the patient-level as well as at the implant-level, to evaluate the effect of explanatory variables on the failure of implants up to abutment connection. A generalized estimating equation method was used for the implant-level analysis, to account for the fact that repeated observations (several implants) were available for a single patient. Overall, 642 implants (6.36%) failed, of which 176 implants (1.74%) in 139 patients were lost up to the 2nd stage surgery. The distribution of implants in sites of different bone quantities/qualities was quite similar between implants lost up to and after abutment connection. Smoking and the intake of antidepressants were the statistically significant predictors in the multivariate model. Trial registration at the U.S. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 IntroductionNowadays dental implant placement is an effective and predictable treatment modality for replacing missing teeth in both fully and partially edentulous patients. Nevertheless, failures still happen despite the high implant survival and success rates (Chrcanovic et al., 2014). Failures of dental implants can be subdivided into early and late failures, depending on whether they occur before or at abutment connection surgery (early) or after occlusal loading by a prosthetic restoration (late). This subdivision is relevant as it is suggested that the failures in these two distinct time periods may be associated with different factors. An early failure of an implant results from an inability to establish an intimate bone-to-implant contact. In this case the bone healing after implant insertion is impaired and may be influenced by local and systemic factors (Alsaadi et al., 2007). Systemic diseases and compromising risky habits may affect oral tissues by increasing their susceptibility to other diseases or by interfering with wound healing. Surgical conditions, submission to radiotherapy, and the intake of medications by the patient may play a role on the outcome of implants. When it comes to late implant failures, the oral microbial environment, parafunctional habits, and the prosthetic rehabilitation variables are also taken into account. Although many studies have shown the influence of local and systemic factors in the long-te...

Risk factors for implant failure: a retrospective study in an educational institution using GEE analyses

“…In addition, low bone density at implant locations has been previously described to be influential on implant failure. 5,24 Using GEE analyses, Chrcanovic et al 25 have likewise found most implant failures in type IV bone.…”

Early Implant Failure Associated With Patient Factors, Surgical Manipulations, and Systemic Conditions

“…The term early implant failure used in this report refers to failure in the first year, chosen for QI purposes. Other reports of early implant failure have had different study purposes and therefore used various time intervals to define the event of interest, such as “less than or equal to 1 year of implant prosthesis loading,” “up to second stage surgery,” and “up to abutment connection.” Papers summarizing multiple reports also have recognized this variability. One review that included seven primary studies conceptually described the time period as representing a “failure to establish osseointegration,” whereas a systematic review of nine primary studies described the data as being representative of failure “before abutment connection.”…”

A 5-year prospective clinical study of Neobiotech implants for partially edentulous patients

“…Only implant arch location has significant association with implant failure based on log-rank test analysis. Although some studies reported contradictory results that implant survival rate has no correlation with the anatomic location of the implant, 17,26,27 there are various studies that reported favorable results in mandibular implants than that of the maxillary implants. 16,[28][29][30] A recent meta-analysis that includes 54 clinical studies of no less than 3 year follow up period were evaluated, and resulted to an annual implant failure rate that is significantly higher in that of the maxilla than the mandible.…”

“…[12][13][14] Despite of numerous papers reporting high implant survival and success rates, implant failures influenced by local and systemic risk factors are still inevitable and showed contradictory results. [15][16][17] In addition, assessment of Korean ethnic characteristics such as arch form, dietary patterns, bone quality, clench force and other risk fac-…”