Intermediate long‐term clinical performance of dental implants placed in sites with a previous early implant failure: a retrospective analysis

Wang, Feng; Zhang, Zhiyong; Monje, Alberto; Huang, Wei; Wu, Yiqun; Wang, Guomin

doi:10.1111/clr.12485

Cited by 32 publications

(63 citation statements)

References 33 publications

(53 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…The surface characteristics of implants were not considered in three studies . In only two studies, the implants with SLA surface characteristics were definitely used in both the initial implantations and the reimplantations. Regrettably, no statistical comparison between SLA and other surface characteristics was evaluated in any of the available studies.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

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

Yang

Chen

Gao

et al. 2019

Clin Implant Dent Rel Res

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background Narrow‐diameter implants (NDIs) have been proposed to address the dilemma of implant installation in cases of insufficient bone volume. However, the potential risk factors of failed NDIs, and whether reimplants with reliable efficacy are still controversial. Purpose This study aimed to evaluate the survival/success rate of NDIs in the maxillary anterior region and that of reimplants at the same site, as well as to explore the potential risk factors of original and replaced implants. Materials and Methods From January 2015 to April 2019, patients receiving NDIs in the anterior maxilla were enrolled in the present study. Multiple variables were assessed to exploit the risk factor of failed NDIs, including age, sex, implant sites, length, surface characteristics, and healing abutment designs. The relationship between bone augmentation and the number of missing teeth was assessed. For failed NDIs, the reasons for NDIs removal and marginal bone loss (MBL) were analyzed. The details and outcomes of reimplants were evaluated. Results Cumulative survival rates (CSRs) and success rates of 1095 NDIs installed in 835 patients were 96.99% and 96.51%, respectively. In total, 33 of these NDIs failed. TiUnite (TU) surface was a risk factor and it affected the success rate (92.56%) and CSR (92.4%) of NDIs (P < .001). The single NDIs with bone augmentation have lower failure rate. The average MBL for 33 failed NDIs was 1.92 ± 1.91 mm. Additionally, 22 patients with 23 NDIs accepted reimplantation of previously failed NDIs, and the success rate of reimplants was 95.65%. Conclusions Surface characteristic (TU surface) was a risk factor for failure of NDIs in the maxillary anterior region. Bone augmentation simultaneously performed during NDIs implantation was favorable for a single missing tooth. As an alternative plan, the reimplantation of failed NDIs was reliable and stable after successful bone reconstruction.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The surface characteristics of implants were not considered in three studies. 27,45,48 In only two studies, 44,46 the implants with SLA surface characteristics were definitely used in both the initial implantations and the reimplantations.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

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

Yang

Chen

Gao

et al. 2019

Clin Implant Dent Rel Res

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Replacement implants were followed for less than 1 year in two studies, 23,25 and for at least 1 year in seven studies. 18,19,20,21,10,27,24 In of one study, the observation period of replacement implants was not reported 26 (Table 2).…”

Section: Implants Placed At Sites With History Of One Implant Failurementioning

confidence: 99%

“…Nonetheless, implant replacement still represents a challenging scenario. 18 Although a number of retrospective cohort studies 18,19,20,21,10,22,23,24,25,26 and one prospective clinical trial 27 have evaluated survival rates of implants placed at sites with history of implant failure, these studies included limited numbers of patients. As such, the precise prognosis of implants placed at failed sites remains unclear.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

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

et al. 2018

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

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.

show abstract

“…Since preliminary studies of the osseointegration process, dental implants have been widely used for the rehabilitation of partially or completely edentulous patients over time with high survival rates (Kwon et al 2014;Wang et al 2015;Tenenbaum et al 2016), and represent one of the most important therapeutic advances in modern dentistry (Wilson et al 2016). Despite the high success and survival rates reported for a large number of clinical studies, implant failure has been frequently reported (Laine et al 2005;Yamane et al 2013;Belibasakis et al 2015).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Experimental conical‐head abutment screws on the microbial leakage through the implant‐abutment interface: an in vitro analysis using target‐specific DNA probes

Pita

Nascimento

Santos

et al. 2016

Clinical Oral Implants Res

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Intermediate long‐term clinical performance of dental implants placed in sites with a previous early implant failure: a retrospective analysis

Abstract: Within the limits of the present study, early implant failure was not an obstacle for implant replacement at the same site after an adequate soft and hard tissues healing period.

Cited by 32 publications

References 33 publications

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

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

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

Experimental conical‐head abutment screws on the microbial leakage through the implant‐abutment interface: an in vitro analysis using target‐specific DNA probes

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About