The aim of the present review is to evaluate the English language literature regarding factors associated with the loss of oral implants. An evidence-based format in conjunction, when possible, with a meta-analytic approach is used. The review identifies the following factors to be associated with biological failures of oral implants: medical status of the patient, smoking, bone quality, bone grafting, irradiation therapy, parafunctions, operator experience, degree of surgical trauma, bacterial contamination, lack of preoperative antibiotics, immediate loading, nonsubmerged procedure, number of implants supporting a prosthesis, implant surface characteristics and design. Excessive surgical trauma together with an impaired healing ability, premature loading and infection are likely to be the most common causes of early implant losses. Whereas progressive chronic marginal infection (peri-implantitis) and overload in conjunction with the host characteristics are the major etiological agents causing late failures. Furthermore, it appears that implant surface properties (roughness and type of coating) may influence the failure pattern. Various surface properties may therefore be indicated for different anatomical and host conditions. Finally, the histopathology of implant losses is described and discussed in relation to the clinical findings.

The aim of this review was to offer a critical evaluation of the literature and to provide the clinician with scientifically-based diagnostic criteria for monitoring the implant condition. The review presents the current opinions on definitions of osseointegration and implant failure. Further, distinctions between failed and failing implants are discussed together with the presently used parameters to assess the implant status. Radiographic examinations together with implant mobility tests seem to be the most reliable parameters in the assessment of the prognosis for osseointegrated implants. On the basis of 73 published articles, the rates of early and late failures of Brånemark implants, used in various anatomical locations and clinical situations, were analyzed using a metanalytic approach. Biologically related implant failures calculated on a sample of 2,812 implants were relatively rare: 7.7% over a 5-year period (bone graft excluded). The predictability of implant treatment was remarkable, particularly for partially edentulous patients, who showed failure rates about half those of totally edentulous subjects. Our analysis also confirmed (for both early and late failures) the general trend of maxillas, having almost 3 times more implant losses than mandibles, with the exception of the partially edentulous situation which displayed similar failure rates both in upper and lower jaws. Surgical trauma together with anatomical conditions are believed to be the most important etiological factors for early implant losses (3.60% of 16,935 implants). The low prevalence of failures attributable to peri-implantitis found in the literature together with the fact that, in general, partially edentulous patients have less resorbed jaws, speak in favour of jaw volume, bone quality, and overload as the three major determinants for late implant failures in the Brånemark system. Conversely, the ITI system seemed to be characterized by a higher prevalence of losses due to peri-implantitis. These differences may be attributed to the different implant designs and surface characteristics. On the basis of the published literature, there appears to be a number of scientific issues which are yet not fully understood. Therefore, it is concluded that further clinical follow-up and retrieval studies are required in order to achieve a better understanding of the mechanisms for failure of osseointegrated implants.

No abstract

We reviewed the literature on the efficacy of enamel matrix derivative (EMD) in comparison with open flap debridement, guided tissue regeneration (GTR), and bone grafting for the treatment of intrabony defects. We searched four major electronic databases for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) with at least one year of follow-up. Several journals were handsearched with no language restrictions. Outcome measures were: tooth loss, changes in probing attachment levels (PAL), pocket depths (PPD), gingival recessions (REC), marginal bone levels on intraoral radiographs, and postoperative infections. Screening of eligible RCTs, assessment of the methodological quality, and data extraction were conducted in duplicate. No difference in tooth loss was observed. A meta-analysis (eight trials) showed that EMD-treated sites displayed statistically significant PAL improvements (mean difference 1.3 mm) and PPD reduction (1 mm) when compared to flap surgery. When EMD was compared to GTR (six trials), GTR showed a statistically significant reduction of PPD (0.6 mm) and increase of REC (0.5 mm). No difference in postoperative infections was observed. No trials compared EMD with bone grafts alone. EMD is able to significantly improve PAL levels and PPD reduction when compared to flap surgery; however, there is no evidence that more teeth could be saved.