Impact of Implantoplasty on Strength of the Implant-Abutment Complex

Chan, Hsun‐Liang; Oh, Won Suck; Ong, Hwei Sze; Fu, Jia; Steigmann, Marius; Sierraalta, Marianella; Wang, Hom Lay

doi:10.11607/jomi.3227

Cited by 49 publications

(86 citation statements)

References 18 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Implantoplasty did not affect significantly implant strength and resistance to fracture of wide diameter implants (i.e., 4.7 mm diameter; Chan et al, ). In contrast, variable results were reported for narrow/regular diameter implants (i.e., 3.75–4.1 mm diameter); in one study, a minimal reduction (i.e., 0.2 mm) in the core diameter of the implant did not significantly affect implant strength (Costa‐Berenguer et al, ), while average strength reduction of about 17%–40%—depending on implant platform/connection design—was observed in two other studies (Chan et al, ; Gehrke et al, ).…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 94%

“…Kappa scores regarding agreement on the articles to be included in the full‐text analysis and those finally chosen were 0.91 and 0.95, respectively ( p < 0.001). Out of a total of 391 records assessed, 26 publications were finally included: six laboratory (Chan et al, ; Costa‐Berenguer et al, ; Gehrke, Aramburú Júnior, Dedavid, & Shibli, ; Sharon, Shapira, Wilensky, Abu‐Hatoum, & Smidt, ; de Souza Júnior et al, ; Tribst, Piva, Shibli, Borges, & Tango, ), two preclinical in vivo (Schwarz, Mihatovic, Golubovic, Becker, & Sager, ; Schwarz, Sahm, Mihatovic, Golubovic, & Becker, ), and 18 clinical publications (Englezos, Cosyn, Koole, Jacquet, & De Bruyn, ; Geremias et al, ; Matarasso et al, ; Nart, de Tapia, Pujol, Pascual, & Valles, ; Pommer et al, ; Ramanauskaite, Becker, Juodzbalys, & Schwarz, ; Romeo et al, ; Sapata, de Souza, Sukekava, Villar, & Neto, ; Schwarz et al, ; Schwarz, John, & Becker, ; Schwarz, John, Mainusch, Sahm, & Becker, ; Schwarz, John, Sahm, & Becker, ; Schwarz, John, Schmucker, Sahm, & Becker, ; Schwarz, Sahm, & Becker, ; Schwarz, Sahm, Iglhaut, et al, ; Suh, Simon, Jeon, Choi, & Kim, ; Thierbach & Eger, ). The two preclinical in vivo publications (Schwarz, Mihatovic, et al, ; Schwarz, Sahm, Mihatovic, et al, ) and the clinical of Romeo et al () and Romeo et al () publications reported on different aspects basically of the same study population.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Mechanical and biological complications after implantoplasty—A systematic review

Stavropoulos

Bertl

Eren

et al. 2019

Clinical Oral Implants Res

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objectives Implantoplasty, that is, the mechanical modification of the implant, including thread removal and surface smoothening, has been proposed during surgical peri‐implantitis treatment. Currently, there is no information about any potential mechanical and/or biological complications after this approach. The aim of the current review was to systematically assess the literature to answer the focused question “Are there any mechanical and/or biological complications due to implantoplasty?”. Materials and methods A systematic literature search was performed in three databases until 23/09/2018 to assess potential mechanical and/or biological complications after implantoplasty. All laboratory, preclinical in vivo, and clinical studies involving implantoplasty were included, and any complication potentially related to implantoplasty was recorded and summarized. Results Out of 386 titles, 26 publications were included in the present review (six laboratory, two preclinical in vivo, and 18 clinical studies). Laboratory studies have shown that implantoplasty does not result in temperature increase, provided proper cooling is used, but leads in reduced implant strength in “standard” dimension implants; further, preclinical studies have shown titanium particle deposition in the surrounding tissues. Nevertheless, no clinical study has reported any remarkable complication due to implantoplasty; among 217‐291 implants subjected to implantoplasty, no implant fracture was reported during a follow‐up of 3–126 months, while only a single case of mucosal discoloration, likely due to titanium particle deposition, has been reported. Conclusions Based on all currently available, yet limited, preclinical in vivo and clinical evidence, implantoplasty seems not associated with any remarkable mechanical or biological complications on the short‐ to medium‐term.

show abstract

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 94%

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Mechanical and biological complications after implantoplasty—A systematic review

Stavropoulos

Bertl

Eren

et al. 2019

Clinical Oral Implants Res

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Previous studies are inconclusive about the reduction 16 or not 9 of the implant's resistance by implantoplasty when 5 mm of the implant are exposed. In the present study, we observed that implantoplasty increases stress concentration on the implant and screw, indicating that the critical stress point of the material will be achieved earlier, thus leading to treatment failure.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 98%

“…3 However, it reduces the diameter and the wall thickness of the implant, 9 therefore the reliability of this treatment is still undefined.…”

Section: Declaration Of Interestsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Influence of implantoplasty on stress distribution of exposed implants at different bone insertion levels

2017

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This study evaluated the effect of implantoplasty on different bone insertion levels of exposed implants. A model of the Bone Level Tapered implant (Straumann Institute, Waldenburg, Switzerland) was created through the Rhinoceros software (version 5.0 SR8, McNeel North America, Seattle, WA, USA). The abutment was fixed to the implant through a retention screw and a monolithic crown was modeled over a cementation line. Six models were created with increasing portions of the implant threads exposed: C1 (1 mm), C2 (2 mm), C3 (3 mm), C4 (4 mm), C5 (5 mm) and C6 (6 mm). The models were made in duplicates and one of each pair was used to simulate implantoplasty, by removing the threads (I1, I2, I3, I4, I5 and I6). The final geometry was exported in STEP format to ANSYS (ANSYS 15.0, ANSYS Inc., Houston, USA) and all materials were considered homogeneous, isotropic and linearly elastic. To assess distribution of stress forces, an axial load (300 N) was applied on the cusp. For the periodontal insert, the strains increased in the peri-implant region according to the size of the exposed portion and independent of the threads' presence. The difference between groups with and without implantoplasty was less than 10%. Critical values were found when the inserted portion was smaller than the exposed portion. In the exposed implants, the stress generated on the implant and retention screw was higher in the models that received implantoplasty. For the bone tissue, exposure of the implant's thread was a damaging factor, independent of implantoplasty. Implantoplasty treatment can be safely used to control peri-implantitis if at least half of the implant is still inserted in bone.

show abstract

“…Despite the promising results reported here and in other studies that evaluated the success of implantoplasty in the treatment of peri‐implantitis, 8,9,11,12 one cannot ensure that these implants will remain free of biologic and/or mechanical complications in the future. Indeed, information emerging from a recent in vitro study demonstrated that implantoplasty weakens the fracture strength of narrow implants 17 . Such reduced fracture strength is likely to be caused by reductions in implant diameter and thickness of implant walls after implantoplasty 18,19 .…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Multidisciplinary Treatment for Peri‐Implantitis: A 24‐Month Follow‐Up Case Report

Sapata

Souza

Sukekava

et al. 2016

Clin Adv Periodontics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Introduction:Although osseointegrated implants are a highly predictable and effective alternative in the rehabilitation of partial or total edentulous patients, the prevalence of implant biological complications has been rising. This report describes a case of peri-implantitis involving multiple maxillary implants that was successfully treated by combining the removal of two implants, surgical debridement associated with implantoplasty of the remaining implants and prosthetic design changes. Case Presentation:A 50-year-old female patient with a fixed full-arch implant-supported maxillary prosthesis presented with chief complaints of halitosis and difficulty in maintaining proper oral hygiene. Based on clinical and radiographic findings a diagnosis of peri-implantitis was established. Two implants were removed due to advanced peri-implant bone loss and inadequate prosthetic positioning. The remaining implants were treated with access surgery, removal of granulation tissue, and implantoplasty of the exposed implant threads. Three months after surgery, an O-ring retained bar overdenture was delivered. At 6, 12 and 24 months after treatment completion, periimplant probing depths were significantly reduced. None of the implants exhibited residual probing depths > 4 mm, bleeding on probing, or suppuration. Moreover, peri-implant bone levels remained stable over time.Conclusion: Surgical therapy combined with implantoplasty of the exposed threads and prosthetic design changes can be successfully used for treating peri-implantitis.

show abstract

Impact of Implantoplasty on Strength of the Implant-Abutment Complex

Cited by 49 publications

References 18 publications

Mechanical and biological complications after implantoplasty—A systematic review

Mechanical and biological complications after implantoplasty—A systematic review

Influence of implantoplasty on stress distribution of exposed implants at different bone insertion levels

Multidisciplinary Treatment for Peri‐Implantitis: A 24‐Month Follow‐Up Case Report

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About