Evaluation of implant success: A review of past and present concepts

Ch, Karthik K V G; SIVAKUMAR, .; Sivaraj,; Thangaswamy, Vinod

doi:10.4103/0975-7406.113310

Cited by 70 publications

(45 citation statements)

References 11 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Since then, implants are often used as a treatment option for total or partial edentulous patients [6] being that their success is directly related to the osteointegration process [7].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Short implants versus bone grafting and standard-length implants placement: a systematic review

et al. 2017

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objectives The aim of this study was to conduct a systematic review to compare the survival rates between short implants (length < 10 mm) versus standard-length implants (≥ 10 mm) inserted in grafted bone. As secondary outcomes, marginal bone loss and survival rates of the implant supported prostheses were also analysed. Materials and methods Randomised controlled trials (RCT) that compared both techniques were searched on three electronic databases till June 2016, a manual search was performed on the bibliography of the collected articles, and the authors were contacted for additional references. The estimates of the interventions were expressed in relative risk (RR), mean implant survival rates and mean differences in marginal bone. Results Eight RCTs were included in this study. From a total of 458 short implants, 15 failed (mean survival rates = 96.7%), While from 488 regular implants, 13 failed (mean survival rates = 97.3%). The technique did not significantly affect: the implant failure rate (P > 0.05), with RR of 1.34 (95% CI 0.67-2.87), the mean differences of marginal bone loss (P = 0.18; MD − 0.04 mm [− 0.10; 0.02] 95% CI), at loading or prosthesis failures rates (RR:0.98; 95% CI 0.40-2.41). The mean differences of marginal bone at 1 year follow-up (post loading) presented significant marginal changes in the short implant group (P = 0.002; MD − 0.10 mm [− 0.16; − 0.03] 95% CI) although a significant high heterogeneity was found between groups. Conclusions This systematic review suggests no difference between both techniques in the treatment of atrophic arches. However, more long-term RCTs are needed to evaluate the predictability at the long run. Clinical relevance The use of short implants might be considered an alternative treatment, since it usually requires fewer surgical phases and tends to be a more affordable option.

show abstract

“…Since then, implants are often used as a treatment option for total or partial edentulous patients [6] being that their success is directly related to the osteointegration process [7].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Short implants versus bone grafting and standard-length implants placement: a systematic review

et al. 2017

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Even genetic and immunological factors like TNF-α and IL-1β have been identified as markers for implant success. [8] …”

Section: Factors Influencing Osseointegrationmentioning

confidence: 99%

Osseointegration- A Review

Vaidya¹,

Mahale²,

Kale³

et al. 2017

IOSR

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…(3)(4)(5) Neural disturbance can be caused by different factors, including the pressure exerted by a full denture or a partial denture on the mental nerve (MN), the contact of the implant with the nerve, the pressure caused by edema, hematoma, scar, or dental injections. (6)(7)(8) The consequences of this damage include paresthesia, hypoesthesia, hyperesthesia, dysesthesia, and anesthesia of the teeth, lower lip, skin, or mucosa. (8) This damage may cause arterial or venous bleeding, whereas peri-implantitis can induce paresthesia.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Assessment of Neurosensory Changes and their Correlation with the Distance between Dental Implants and the Inferior Alveolar Nerve after Implantation

Fard

Tahmasbi²,

Mesgari

et al. 2018

J Res Dentomaxillofac Sci

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

ARTICLE INFOBackground and aim: Neurosensory disorders after implant insertion are one of the main concerns in implant treatments. Neurosensory disorders can be driven by different factors including the contact of the implant with the nerve, pressure of edema, hematoma, scar, or dental injections. This study aimed at investigating the distance between the implant and the inferior alveolar nerve (IAN) and its impact on neurosensory disorders. Materials and methods:In this descriptive study, panoramic radiographs were taken from 100 patients experiencing neurosensory changes after 10 days of implantation. The patients were reassessed 4 weeks later, and the distance (mm) between the implants and the IAN was measured. Data were analyzed using descriptive statistics. Results: All patients experienced neurosensory changes 10 days after implantation.Four weeks after surgery, 82 patients healed: the distance between the implants and the IAN was 1-2 mm in 16 patients and 2 mm in 66 patients. In 18 patients, neurosensory changes persisted; in this group, the distance between the implants and the IAN was less than 1 mm in 11 patients, 1-2 mm in 6 patients, and more than 2 mm in 1 patient. The results indicated that the chance of healing of neurosensory changes is significantly correlated with the distance between the implant and the IAN (P<0.01). This correlation was not significant with respect to age or gender (P<0.9). Conclusion: It seems that the lesser is the distance between the implant and the IAN, the lower is the chance of healing of neurosensory changes.

show abstract

Evaluation of implant success: A review of past and present concepts

Cited by 70 publications

References 11 publications

Short implants versus bone grafting and standard-length implants placement: a systematic review

Short implants versus bone grafting and standard-length implants placement: a systematic review

Osseointegration- A Review

Assessment of Neurosensory Changes and their Correlation with the Distance between Dental Implants and the Inferior Alveolar Nerve after Implantation

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About