Prevalence of Implant Loss and the Influence of Associated Factors

Koldsland, Odd Carsten; Scheie, Anne Aamdal; Aass, ­Anne Merete

doi:10.1902/jop.2009.080594

Cited by 100 publications

(84 citation statements)

References 24 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Investigators in several implant outcome studies reported that previous or present periodontitis was associated with an increased risk of implant failure, 15–19 a risk that can be decreased with successful periodontal treatment and maintenance therapy. 20 Although only 28 percent of the implants in our study were placed immediately after tooth extraction, immediate placement was associated with an increased risk of failure.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Outcomes of implants and restorations placed in general dental practices

Silva¹,

Kazimiroff²,

Papas³

et al. 2014

The Journal of the American Dental Association

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objectives The authors conducted a study to determine the types, outcomes, risk factors and esthetic assessment of implants and their restorations placed in the general practices of a practice-based research network. Methods All patients who visited network practices three to five years previously and underwent placement of an implant and restoration within the practice were invited to enroll. Practitioner-investigators (P-Is) recorded the status of the implant and restoration, characteristics of the implant site and restoration, presence of peri-implant pathology and an esthetic assessment by the P-I and patient. The P-Is classified implants as failures if the original implant was missing or had been replaced, the implant was mobile or elicited pain on percussion, there was overt clinical or radiographic evidence of pathology or excessive bone loss (> 0.2 millimeter per year after an initial bone loss of 2 mm). They classified restorations as failures if they had been replaced or if there was abutment or restoration fracture. Results The authors enrolled 922 implants and patients from 87 practices, with a mean (standard deviation) follow-up of 4.2 (0.6) years. Of the 920 implants for which complete data records were available, 64 (7.0 percent) were classified as failures when excessive bone loss was excluded from the analysis. When excessive bone loss was included, 172 implants (18.7 percent) were classified as failures. According to the results of univariate analysis, a history of severe periodontitis, sites with preexisting inflammation or type IV bone, cases of immediate implant placement and placement in the incisor or canine region were associated with implant failure. According to the results of multivariate analysis, sites with preexisting inflammation (odds ratio [OR] = 2.17; 95 percent confidence interval [CI], 1.41–3.34]) or type IV bone (OR = 1.99; 95 percent CI, 1.12–3.55) were associated with a greater risk of implant failure. Of the 908 surviving implants, 20 (2.2 percent) had restorations replaced or judged as needing to be replaced. The majority of P-Is and patients were satisfied with the esthetic outcomes for both the implant and restoration. Conclusions These results suggest that implant survival and success rates in general dental practices may be lower than those reported in studies conducted in academic or specialty settings. Practical Implications The results of this study, generated in the private general practice setting, add to the evidence base to facilitate implant treatment planning.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Outcomes of implants and restorations placed in general dental practices

Silva¹,

Kazimiroff²,

Papas³

et al. 2014

The Journal of the American Dental Association

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…[4][5][6] Interest in the impact of local factors on implant survival has additionally been the focus of many reports that identify bone quality and quantity, as well as implant stability data. [7][8][9] However, given such a low incidence of device failure, it can be appreciated that large numbers of implants should be followed for long periods of time to best discern meaningful associations.…”

Section: Commentary and Analysismentioning

confidence: 99%

Implant Location and Radiotherapy are the only Factors Linked to 2-Year Implant Failure

Carr

2010

Journal of Evidence Based Dental Practice

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…Few studies (5)(6)(7)(8)(9)(10)(11) analyze early failure of implants and study the related risk factors. Other studies (12)(13)(14)(15), specify the number of early and late failures, and indicate the risk factors related with the total number of failures. In these studies early failure rates vary from 1.2 to 3% and late failure rates from 0 to 1.8%, early failures being more frequent than late (12)(13)(14)(15)(16)(17).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Other studies (12)(13)(14)(15), specify the number of early and late failures, and indicate the risk factors related with the total number of failures. In these studies early failure rates vary from 1.2 to 3% and late failure rates from 0 to 1.8%, early failures being more frequent than late (12)(13)(14)(15)(16)(17). The causes and mechanisms of early implant failure are unclear, different studies (5-11) have found a variety of statistically significant factors associated with early implant failure, these are: age and sex (11), systemic diseases (8,9), smoking (5-7,9,10), type of edentulism (8,9), maxillary implant location (6), quantity and quality of bone (5)(6)(7)(8), and implant length and diameter (7,8).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Risk factors associated with early failure of dental implants. A literature review

Palma-Carrió¹,

Maestre-Ferrín²,

Peñarrocha‐Oltra³

et al. 2011

Med Oral

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The aim of the study was to examine articles published on risk factors associated with early failure of dental implants. We conducted a search on PubMed for articles published between January 2000 and December 2009 using the keywords 'dental implants' and 'early failure'. Seven studies that specified the number of early failed implants and studied the associated risk factors were included. Early failures are caused by the inability of tissue to establish osseointegration prior to prosthetic restoration; however the causal factors and mechanisms are unclear. In the reviewed literature there was a higher percentage of early than late failures; nevertheless, few articles were found that analyzed risk factors associated with early implant failure. In the majority of studies, statistically significant factors associated with early implant failure were smoking, quantity and quality of bone, and posterior implant location. The low number of studies in the literature does not allow definitive conclusions to be drawn.

show abstract

Prevalence of Implant Loss and the Influence of Associated Factors

Abstract: The inserted implants showed a high survival rate, especially after the first year of insertion, even though the subjects were not maintained by specialists. All late implant losses were preceded by an early loss. Implant loss was significantly associated with smoking and periodontitis.

Cited by 100 publications

References 24 publications

Outcomes of implants and restorations placed in general dental practices

Outcomes of implants and restorations placed in general dental practices

Implant Location and Radiotherapy are the only Factors Linked to 2-Year Implant Failure

Risk factors associated with early failure of dental implants. A literature review

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About